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.
342 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 55 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maiden v. Rozwoodgreen2 sentences2024The motion may be granted only when the allegations are “so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Maiden, 461 Mich at 119 (quotation marks and citation omitted). -4- A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. 2024Maiden, 461 Mich at 120 . | 2 | 18 |
Innovative Adult Foster Care, Inc v. Ragingreen2 sentences2024“A motion for summary disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim.” Innovative Adult Foster Care, Inc v Ragin, 285 Mich App 466, 474-475 ; 776 NW2d 398 (2009). 2024“A motion for summary disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim.” Innovative Adult Foster Care, Inc v Ragin, 285 Mich App 466, 474-475 ; 776 NW2d 398 (2009). | 2 | 15 |
Smith v. Globe Life Insurancered2 sentences2002Co., 460 Mich. 446, 455 , 597 N.W.2d 28 (1999). *166 A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support of a claim. 2002Co., 460 Mich. 446, 455 , 597 N.W.2d 28 (1999). *166 A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support of a claim. | 1 | 12 |
MacCabees Mutual Life Insurance v. Department of Treasurygreen2 sentences1988Maccabees Mutual Life Ins Co v Dep't of Treasury, 122 Mich App 660, 663 ; 332 NW2d 561 (1983), lv den 417 Mich 1100 .15 (1983). 1988Maccabees Mutual Life Ins Co v Dep't of Treasury, 122 Mich App 660, 663 ; 332 NW2d 561 (1983), lv den 417 Mich 1100 .15 (1983). | 1 | 12 |
| Kefgen v. Davidsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barnard Manufacturing Co. v. Gates Performance Engineering, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Meemic Insurance v. DTE Energy Co.
green
2 sentences2026The motion for summary disposition “tests the factual support for a claim and should be granted if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” MEEMIC Ins Co v DTE Energy Co, 292 Mich App 278, 280 ; 807 NW2d 407 (2011). 2026The motion for summary disposition “tests the factual support for a claim and should be granted if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” MEEMIC Ins Co v DTE Energy Co, 292 Mich App 278, 280 ; 807 NW2d 407 (2011). | 31 | 2014–2026 |
Spiek v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2026A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for the claim.11 Spiek v Mich Dep’t of Transp, 456 Mich 331, 337 ; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). 2026A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for the claim.11 Spiek v Mich Dep’t of Transp, 456 Mich 331, 337 ; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). | 26 | 1998–2026 |
West v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2014A motion brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10) tests the factual support for a claim, and should be granted when “there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 2014A motion brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10) tests the factual support for a claim, and should be granted when “there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). | 13 | 2014–2026 |
Anzaldua v. Neogen Corp.
green
2 sentences2023“A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim and should be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Anzaldua v Neogen Corp, 292 Mich App 626, 630 ; 808 NW2d 804 (2011). 2023“A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim and should be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Anzaldua v Neogen Corp, 292 Mich App 626, 630 ; 808 NW2d 804 (2011). | 13 | 2017–2023 |
Dressel v. Ameribank
green
2 sentences2026A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) “tests the factual support for a claim.” Dressel v Ameribank, 468 Mich 557, 561 ; 664 NW2d 151 (2003). 2026A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) “tests the factual support for a claim.” Dressel v Ameribank, 468 Mich 557, 561 ; 664 NW2d 151 (2003). | 12 | 2003–2026 |
Walsh v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2017A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim, Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App 618, 621 ; 689 NW2d 506 (2004), and should be granted as a matter of law when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,” MCR 2.116(C)(10). 2017A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim, Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App 618, 621 ; 689 NW2d 506 (2004), and should be granted as a matter of law when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,” MCR 2.116(C)(10). | 12 | 2007–2021 |
Morganroth v. Whitall
green
2 sentences1989A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10) tests the factual support for a claim. *370 Morganroth v Whitall, 161 Mich App 785, 788 ; 411 NW2d 859 (1987). 1989A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10) tests the factual support for a claim. *370 Morganroth v Whitall, 161 Mich App 785, 788 ; 411 NW2d 859 (1987). | 11 | 1988–1990 |
Downey v. Charlevoix County Board
green
2 sentences2018Downey v Charlevoix Co Bd of Rd Comm’rs, 227 Mich App 621, 625-626 ; 576 NW2d 712 (1998). 2018Downey v Charlevoix Co Bd of Rd Comm’rs, 227 Mich App 621, 625-626 ; 576 NW2d 712 (1998). | 10 | 2003–2018 |
Lindsey Patrick v. Virginia B Turkelson
green
2 sentences2021“A motion for summary disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim.” Patrick v Turkelson, 322 Mich App 595, 605 ; 913 NW2d 369 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2021“A motion for summary disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim.” Patrick v Turkelson, 322 Mich App 595, 605 ; 913 NW2d 369 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 9 | 2019–2024 |
Stone v. Auto-Owners Insurance
green
2 sentences2023A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. -6- Stone v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 307 Mich App 169, 173 ; 858 NW2d 765 (2014) (citation omitted). 2023A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. -6- Stone v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 307 Mich App 169, 173 ; 858 NW2d 765 (2014) (citation omitted). | 8 | 2015–2024 |
Lakeview Commons Ltd. Partnership v. Empower Yourself, LLC
green
2 sentences2023Id. 2022Id. | 8 | 2016–2023 |
Coblentz v. City of Novi
green
2 sentences2023Coblentz v Novi, 475 Mich 558, 567 ; 719 NW2d 73 (2006). 2023Coblentz v Novi, 475 Mich 558, 567 ; 719 NW2d 73 (2006). | 8 | 2012–2023 |
Cox v. Eric J. Hartman, M.D., & Blue Water Obstetrics & Gynecology Prof'l Corp.
green
2 sentences2023A genuine issue of material fact “ ‘exists when the record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ.’ ” Cox v Hartman, 322 Mich App 292, 299 ; 911 NW2d 219 (2017) (citation omitted). 2023A genuine issue of material fact “ ‘exists when the record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ.’ ” Cox v Hartman, 322 Mich App 292, 299 ; 911 NW2d 219 (2017) (citation omitted). | 7 | 2019–2023 |
Babula v. Robertson
green
2 sentences2018Babula v Robertson, 212 Mich -2- App 45, 48; 536 NW2d 834 (1995). 2018Babula v Robertson, 212 Mich -2- App 45, 48; 536 NW2d 834 (1995). | 7 | 2014–2018 |
In Re Hansen
green
2 sentences2017Initially, we note that the trial court erroneously granted summary disposition in this case. “[A] motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim[.]” Nuculovic v Hill, 287 Mich App 58, 61 ; 783 NW2d 124 (2010) (emphasis added). 2017Initially, we note that the trial court erroneously granted summary disposition in this case. “[A] motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim[.]” Nuculovic v Hill, 287 Mich App 58, 61 ; 783 NW2d 124 (2010) (emphasis added). | 7 | 2013–2017 |
Nuculovic v. Hill
green
2 sentences2017Initially, we note that the trial court erroneously granted summary disposition in this case. “[A] motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim[.]” Nuculovic v Hill, 287 Mich App 58, 61 ; 783 NW2d 124 (2010) (emphasis added). 2017Initially, we note that the trial court erroneously granted summary disposition in this case. “[A] motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim[.]” Nuculovic v Hill, 287 Mich App 58, 61 ; 783 NW2d 124 (2010) (emphasis added). | 6 | 2017–2017 |
Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Manufacturing
green
2 sentences2023A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. -4- Innovation Ventures v Liquid Mfg, 499 Mich 491, 507 ; 885 NW2d 861 (2016). 2023A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. -4- Innovation Ventures v Liquid Mfg, 499 Mich 491, 507 ; 885 NW2d 861 (2016). | 5 | 2023–2024 |
Quinto v. Cross and Peters Co.
green
2 sentences2016A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim, Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App 618, 621 ; 689 NW2d 506 (2004), and should only be granted if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362 ; 547 NW2d 314 (1996). 2016A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim, Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App 618, 621 ; 689 NW2d 506 (2004), and should only be granted if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362 ; 547 NW2d 314 (1996). | 5 | 1998–2024 |
Hazle v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2018After reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, a trial court may grant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. 2018After reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, a trial court may grant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. | 5 | 2003–2018 |
Steward v. Panek
green
2 sentences2020“A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim.” Steward v Panek, 251 Mich App 546, 555 ; 652 NW2d 232 (2002). 2020“A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim.” Steward v Panek, 251 Mich App 546, 555 ; 652 NW2d 232 (2002). | 4 | 2018–2020 |
Bagby v. Detroit Edison Company
green
2 sentences2017A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) “tests the factual support for a claim and should be granted if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Bagby v Detroit Edison Co, 308 Mich App 488, 490 ; 865 NW2d 59 (2014). 2017A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) “tests the factual support for a claim and should be granted if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Bagby v Detroit Edison Co, 308 Mich App 488, 490 ; 865 NW2d 59 (2014). | 4 | 2017–2017 |
Campbell v. Kovich
green
2 sentences2017A motion made under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim, Campbell v Kovich, 273 Mich App 227, 229 ; 731 NW2d 112 (2006), and should be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 2017A motion made under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim, Campbell v Kovich, 273 Mich App 227, 229 ; 731 NW2d 112 (2006), and should be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. | 4 | 2010–2017 |
Lewis v. LeGrow
green
2 sentences2009Lewis v LeGrow, 258 Mich App 175, 192 ; 670 NW2d 675 (2003). 2009Lewis v LeGrow, 258 Mich App 175, 192 ; 670 NW2d 675 (2003). | 4 | 2004–2009 |
Miller v. Purcell
green
2 sentences2008A motion made under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim, Dressel v Ameribank, 468 Mich 557, 561 ; 664 NW2d 151 (2003), and should be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Miller v Purcell, 246 Mich App 244, 246 ; 631 NW2d 760 (2001). 2008A motion made under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim, Dressel v Ameribank, 468 Mich 557, 561 ; 664 NW2d 151 (2003), and should be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Miller v Purcell, 246 Mich App 244, 246 ; 631 NW2d 760 (2001). | 4 | 2006–2008 |
St Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Quintana
green
2 sentences1989St Paul Fire & Marine Ins Co v Quintana, 165 Mich App 719, 722 ; 419 NW2d 60 (1988), lv den 430 Mich 885 (1988). 1989St Paul Fire & Marine Ins Co v Quintana, 165 Mich App 719, 722 ; 419 NW2d 60 (1988), lv den 430 Mich 885 (1988). | 4 | 1988–1989 |
Crowther v. Ross Chemical and Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences1987Crowther v. Ross Chemical & Manufacturing Co, 42 Mich App 426 ; 202 NW2d 577 (1972), interpreting GCR 1963, 117.2(3), the predecessor of MCR 2.116(C)(10); Durant v Stahlin, 375 Mich 628 ; 135 NW2d 392 (1965). 1987Crowther v. Ross Chemical & Manufacturing Co, 42 Mich App 426 ; 202 NW2d 577 (1972), interpreting GCR 1963, 117.2(3), the predecessor of MCR 2.116(C)(10); Durant v Stahlin, 375 Mich 628 ; 135 NW2d 392 (1965). | 4 | 1986–1987 |
| Corley v. Detroit Board of Education green | 3 | 2011–2026 |
| Joseph v. Auto Club Insurance Association green | 3 | 2019–2024 |
| French v. Grand Beach Co. green | 3 | 2022–2022 |
| Sheridan v. Forest Hills Public Schools green | 3 | 2018–2020 |
| Urbain v. Beierling green | 3 | 2019–2019 |
| Allison v. AEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLP green | 3 | 2017–2018 |
| Skinner v. Square D Co. red | 3 | 1995–2015 |
| Healing Place at North Oakland Medical Center v. Allstate Insurance green | 3 | 2010–2010 |
| Panich v. Iron Wood Products Corp. green | 3 | 1995–1999 |
| Lash v. Allstate Insurance green | 3 | 1997–1998 |
| Radtke v. Everett green | 3 | 1996–1997 |
| Boyle v. Odette green | 3 | 1989–1990 |
| Grochowalski v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange green | 3 | 1989–1990 |
| Dumas v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n green | 3 | 1989–1989 |
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.