340 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 53 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 Insurancegreen2 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 sentences2024The 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). 2018A motion for summary disposition brought under MCL 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.” MEEMIC Ins Co v DTE Energy -6- Co, 292 Mich App 278, 280 ; 807 NW2d 407 (2011). | 27 | 2014–2024 |
Spiek v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2024Amazon brought its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) which tests the factual support of a claim Spiek v Dept of Transp, 456 Mich 331, 337 ; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). 2024Amazon brought its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) which tests the factual support of a claim Spiek v Dept of Transp, 456 Mich 331, 337 ; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). | 25 | 1998–2025 |
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 City of Novi, 475 Mich 558, 567 ; 719 NW2d 73 (2006), citing MCR 2.116(G)(4). 2023Coblentz v City of Novi, 475 Mich 558, 567 ; 719 NW2d 73 (2006), citing MCR 2.116(G)(4). | 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
| 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. green | 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 |
| Williamstown Township v. Hudson green | 2 | 2019–2025 |
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.