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 1896–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tomra of North America Inc v. Department of Treasurygreen2 sentences2020We have never before addressed this issue, but general guidance can be found in Detroit Edison Co v Dep’t of Treasury.26 In deciding whether the exemption applied to equipment used in transmitting electricity, we suggested that a taxpayer could claim an exemption either by satisfying the general definition of industrial processing in Subsection (7)(a) or by showing that it was engaged in one or more of the enumerated activities listed 23 MCL 205.54t(3); see also MCL 205.94o(3). 24 MCL 205.54t(4)(b); see also MCL 205.94o(4)(b). 25 TOMRA, 325 Mich App at 305 (K. 2020We have never before addressed this issue, but general guidance can be found in Detroit Edison Co v Dep’t of Treasury.26 In deciding whether the exemption applied to equipment used in transmitting electricity, we suggested that a taxpayer could claim an exemption either by satisfying the general definition of industrial processing in Subsection (7)(a) or by showing that it was engaged in one or more of the enumerated activities listed 23 MCL 205.54t(3); see also MCL 205.94o(3). 24 MCL 205.54t(4)(b); see also MCL 205.94o(4)(b). 25 TOMRA, 325 Mich App at 305 (K. | 2 | 2 |
Swanson v. Stategreen1 sentence1997The Court specifically limited its holding as permitting a number of state options to address that concern: *591 This language has been applied to uphold state refund procedures that require a taxpayer to challenge a tax within thirty days after payment of the tax, Swanson v North Carolina, 335 NC 674; 441 SE2d 537, 545 (1994), and that taxpayers protest a tax at the time of payment as a prerequisite to relief, Jenkins v Missouri, 962 F2d 762, 766 (CA 8, 1992). *590 A State’s freedom to impose various procedural requirements on actions for postdeprivation relief sufficiently meets this concern | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Detroit Edison Company v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences2020F. KELLY, J., dissenting). 26 Detroit Edison Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 498 Mich 28 ; 869 NW2d 810 (2015). 11 in Subsection (3). 2020F. KELLY, J., dissenting). 26 Detroit Edison Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 498 Mich 28 ; 869 NW2d 810 (2015). 11 in Subsection (3). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Peltola
green
2 sentences2017While it is true that this Court must avoid an interpretation that negates any portion of the statute, see Peltola, 489 Mich at 181 , petitioner’s argument overlooks MCL 205.21(5), which allows a taxpayer to pay an assessment and any interest or penalties during the pendency of his challenge of that assessment, thereby rendering his challenge of the assessment a claim for refund. “[U]njustly assessed” in MCL 205.30 is not rendered nugatory by determining that MCL 205.22(4) bars, as a collateral attack, a refund claim which challenges a conclusive assessment, because, under that interpretation, 2017While it is true that this Court must avoid an interpretation that negates any portion of the statute, see Peltola, 489 Mich at 181 , petitioner’s argument overlooks MCL 205.21(5), which allows a taxpayer to pay an assessment and any interest or penalties during the pendency of his challenge of that assessment, thereby rendering his challenge of the assessment a claim for refund. “[U]njustly assessed” in MCL 205.30 is not rendered nugatory by determining that MCL 205.22(4) bars, as a collateral attack, a refund claim which challenges a conclusive assessment, because, under that interpretation, | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Township of Caledonia v. Rose
green
2 sentences1915In Township of Caledonia v. Rose, 94 Mich. 216 ( 53 N. W. 927 ), and in Auditor General v. Chandler, 108 Mich. 569 ( 66 N. W. 482 ), where the board of review had adjourned at the end of the first day and did not hold any session on the second day, it was held that such action deprived the taxpayer of his hearing under this statute, and in both cases the court said: “The provision of the statute requiring the board to meet upon the days named is mandatory, and it cannot deprive the taxpayer of his hearing there, and thereby force him to a suit at law to obtain redress. 1915In Township of Caledonia v. Rose, 94 Mich. 216 ( 53 N. W. 927 ), and in Auditor General v. Chandler, 108 Mich. 569 ( 66 N. W. 482 ), where the board of review had adjourned at the end of the first day and did not hold any session on the second day, it was held that such action deprived the taxpayer of his hearing under this statute, and in both cases the court said: “The provision of the statute requiring the board to meet upon the days named is mandatory, and it cannot deprive the taxpayer of his hearing there, and thereby force him to a suit at law to obtain redress. | 2 | 1896–1915 |
Spoon-Shacket Co. v. County of Oakland
green
1 sentence2006Moreover, roughly three years after Consumers was decided, this Court overruled Consumers in Spoon-Shacket, supra, and in doing so implied that had MCL 211.53a been in place when the Consumers plaintiff filed its claim, the plaintiff would have been permitted to recoup its overpayment. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Auditor General v. Chandler
green
2 sentences1915In Township of Caledonia v. Rose, 94 Mich. 216 ( 53 N. W. 927 ), and in Auditor General v. Chandler, 108 Mich. 569 ( 66 N. W. 482 ), where the board of review had adjourned at the end of the first day and did not hold any session on the second day, it was held that such action deprived the taxpayer of his hearing under this statute, and in both cases the court said: “The provision of the statute requiring the board to meet upon the days named is mandatory, and it cannot deprive the taxpayer of his hearing there, and thereby force him to a suit at law to obtain redress. 1915In Township of Caledonia v. Rose, 94 Mich. 216 ( 53 N. W. 927 ), and in Auditor General v. Chandler, 108 Mich. 569 ( 66 N. W. 482 ), where the board of review had adjourned at the end of the first day and did not hold any session on the second day, it was held that such action deprived the taxpayer of his hearing under this statute, and in both cases the court said: “The provision of the statute requiring the board to meet upon the days named is mandatory, and it cannot deprive the taxpayer of his hearing there, and thereby force him to a suit at law to obtain redress. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Wright v. Auditor General
neutral
1 sentence1915Defendant was entitled to assume that the board would remain in session the full length of time provided by the statute, and to arrange to be present any day he chose.” The contention of appellant, relying upon the decision of this court in Wright v. Auditor General, 118 Mich. 556 ( 77 N. W. 11 ), is that defendant’s agent in the instant case had ample opportunity to attend the meeting of the board of review on the afternoon of that day after the board returned. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Laroue v. Conway
neutral
1 sentence1915Defendant was entitled to assume that the board would remain in session the full length of time provided by the statute, and to arrange to be present any day he chose.” The contention of appellant, relying upon the decision of this court in Wright v. Auditor General, 118 Mich. 556 ( 77 N. W. 11 ), is that defendant’s agent in the instant case had ample opportunity to attend the meeting of the board of review on the afternoon of that day after the board returned. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.