Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1919–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Estate of Coopergreen2 sentences1998See In re Cooper Estate, 81 Wash App 79; 913 P2d 393 (1996); In re Ames Estate, 152 Wis 2d 217, 230-233 ; 448 NW2d 250 (1989) (holding that the prudent-person test is a mixed question of law and fact; what the trustee did or did not do is a question of fact, and what a reasonable trustee would have done is a legal question, both properly determined by the trial court). 1998See In re Cooper Estate, 81 Wash.App. 79 , 913 P.2d 393 (1996); In re Ames Estate, 152 Wis.2d 217, 230-233 , 448 N.W.2d 250 (1989) (holding that the prudent-person test is a mixed question of law and fact; what the trustee did or did not do is a question of fact, and what a reasonable trustee would have done is a legal question, both properly determined by the trial court). | 1 | 2 |
In Re Messer Trustgreen2 sentences2017See In re Messer Trust, 457 Mich 371, 387 ; 579 NW2d 73 (1998) (“The probate court . . . is in the best position to make the determination whether a trustee has breached its duty under the prudent-person rule.”). 2017See In re Messer Trust, 457 Mich 371, 387 ; 579 NW2d 73 (1998) (“The probate court . . . is in the best position to make the determination whether a trustee has breached its duty under the prudent-person rule.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cain v. Masurette
neutral
2 sentences1932The case is within the rule, not the exception, stated in Cain v. Masurette, 196 Mich. 7 : “"While the weight of authority is to the effect that it is no defense to an action brought by an agent against his principal toAecover commissions for negotiating a sale of land that the principal does *266 not hold title to the land, or cannot convey a perfect title, * * * yet the decisions generally hold that where a broker, who at the time he makes his contract with the owner, knows of defects in the employer ’s title, or who knows of facts sufficient to put a prudent person on inquiry, which, if fol 1923In Cain v. Masurette, 196 Mich. 7 , the plaintiff, a broker, sued for commission and it was held: “While the weight of authority is to the effect that it is no defense to an action brought by an agent against his principal to recover commissions for negotiating a sale of land that the principal does not hold title to the land, or cannot convey a perfect title (see 19 Cyc. p. 240, and cases cited in note), yet the decisions generally hold that where a broker, who at the time he makes his contract with the owner, knows of defects in the employer’s title, or who knows of facts sufficient to put a | 4 | 1919–1932 |
Estate of Ames v. Markesan State Bank
green
2 sentences1998See In re Cooper Estate, 81 Wash App 79; 913 P2d 393 (1996); In re Ames Estate, 152 Wis 2d 217, 230-233 ; 448 NW2d 250 (1989) (holding that the prudent-person test is a mixed question of law and fact; what the trustee did or did not do is a question of fact, and what a reasonable trustee would have done is a legal question, both properly determined by the trial court). 1998See In re Cooper Estate, 81 Wash App 79; 913 P2d 393 (1996); In re Ames Estate, 152 Wis 2d 217, 230-233 ; 448 NW2d 250 (1989) (holding that the prudent-person test is a mixed question of law and fact; what the trustee did or did not do is a question of fact, and what a reasonable trustee would have done is a legal question, both properly determined by the trial court). | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Gettleson v. Lewis
neutral
2 sentences1922Ca in v. Masurette, 196 Mich. 7 .” Gettleson v. Lewis, 206 Mich. 113 . 1921We quote from what was there said by Mr. Justice STONE, italicizing the language applicable to the instant case: “While the weight of authority is to the effect that it Is no defense to an action brought by an agent against his principal to recover commissions for negotiating a sale of land that the principal does not hold title to the land, or cannot convey a perfect title (see 19 Cyc. p. 240, and cases cited in note), yet the decisions generally hold that where a broker, who at the time he makes his contract with the owner, knows of defects in the employer’s title, or who knows of facts suff | 2 | 1921–1922 |
In Re DUKE ESTATE
green
2 sentences2017We “give broad deference to findings made by the probate court because of its unique vantage point regarding witnesses, their testimony, and other influencing factors not readily available to the reviewing court.” In re Duke Estate, 312 Mich App 574, 581 ; 887 NW2d 1 (2015). 2017We “give broad deference to findings made by the probate court because of its unique vantage point regarding witnesses, their testimony, and other influencing factors not readily available to the reviewing court.” In re Duke Estate, 312 Mich App 574, 581 ; 887 NW2d 1 (2015). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.