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.
7 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1965–1993 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Peoples State Bank v. Bloch
green
2 sentences1993In so holding, the Court explained: " 'The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: "' "The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client’s cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a comrpomise [sic] valid and binding on the cleint [sic].” ’ (Citing numerous cases.) " 'The above rule has been adhered to 1993In so holding, the Court explained: "`The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: "`"The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client's cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a comrpomise [sic] valid and binding on the cleint [sic]."' (Citing numerous cases.) "`The above rule has been adhered to in | 6 | 1965–1993 |
Wells v. United Savings Bank
neutral
2 sentences1993In so holding, the Court explained: " 'The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: "' "The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client’s cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a comrpomise [sic] valid and binding on the cleint [sic].” ’ (Citing numerous cases.) " 'The above rule has been adhered to 1993In so holding, the Court explained: " 'The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: "' "The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client’s cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a comrpomise [sic] valid and binding on the cleint [sic].” ’ (Citing numerous cases.) " 'The above rule has been adhered to | 6 | 1965–1993 |
Eaton v. Knowles
neutral
2 sentences1993In so holding, the Court explained: " 'The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: "' "The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client’s cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a comrpomise [sic] valid and binding on the cleint [sic].” ’ (Citing numerous cases.) " 'The above rule has been adhered to 1993In so holding, the Court explained: "`The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: "`"The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client's cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a comrpomise [sic] valid and binding on the cleint [sic]."' (Citing numerous cases.) "`The above rule has been adhered to in | 6 | 1965–1993 |
Fetz v. Leyendecker
neutral
2 sentences1993In so holding, the Court explained: " 'The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: "' "The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client’s cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a comrpomise [sic] valid and binding on the cleint [sic].” ’ (Citing numerous cases.) " 'The above rule has been adhered to 1993In so holding, the Court explained: " 'The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: "' "The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client’s cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a comrpomise [sic] valid and binding on the cleint [sic].” ’ (Citing numerous cases.) " 'The above rule has been adhered to | 6 | 1965–1993 |
Presnell v. Wayne Board of County Road Commissioners
green
2 sentences1993In so holding, the Court explained: " 'The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: "' "The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client’s cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a comrpomise [sic] valid and binding on the cleint [sic].” ’ (Citing numerous cases.) " 'The above rule has been adhered to 1993In so holding, the Court explained: " 'The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: "' "The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client’s cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a comrpomise [sic] valid and binding on the cleint [sic].” ’ (Citing numerous cases.) " 'The above rule has been adhered to | 4 | 1982–1993 |
Slater v. City of Grand Rapids
neutral
2 sentences1993In so holding, the Court explained: " 'The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: "' "The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client’s cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a comrpomise [sic] valid and binding on the cleint [sic].” ’ (Citing numerous cases.) " 'The above rule has been adhered to 1993In so holding, the Court explained: "`The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: "`"The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client's cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a comrpomise [sic] valid and binding on the cleint [sic]."' (Citing numerous cases.) "`The above rule has been adhered to in | 3 | 1984–1993 |
Mich. Nat'l Bank of Detroit v. Patmon
green
2 sentences1993In so holding, the Court explained: " 'The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: "' "The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client’s cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a comrpomise [sic] valid and binding on the cleint [sic].” ’ (Citing numerous cases.) " 'The above rule has been adhered to 1993In so holding, the Court explained: " 'The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: "' "The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client’s cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a comrpomise [sic] valid and binding on the cleint [sic].” ’ (Citing numerous cases.) " 'The above rule has been adhered to | 3 | 1984–1993 |
Henderson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
green
2 sentences1981In Henderson v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, 374 Mich 142, 147 ; 132 NW2d 75 (1965), the Michigan Supreme Court stated the rule as follows: "The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: " 'The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client’s cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a compromise valid 1981In Henderson v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, 374 Mich 142, 147 ; 132 NW2d 75 (1965), the Michigan Supreme Court stated the rule as follows: "The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: " 'The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client’s cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a compromise valid | 2 | 1969–1981 |
Pedder v. Kalish
green
1 sentence1981In Henderson v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, 374 Mich 142, 147 ; 132 NW2d 75 (1965), the Michigan Supreme Court stated the rule as follows: "The principle which governs this case is set forth in 66 ALR 107 et seq., as supplemented in 30 ALR2d 944 et seq., as follows: " 'The almost unanimous rule, laid down by the courts of the United States, both Federal and State, is that an attorney at law has no power, by virtue of his general retainer, to compromise his client’s cause of action; but that precedent special authority or subsequent ratification is necessary to make such a compromise valid | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.