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.
12 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Van Buren Charter Twp. v. Visteon Corp.green2 sentences2025“Under the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation: if, before the time of performance, a party to a contract unequivocally declares the intent not to perform, the innocent party has the option to either sue immediately for the breach of contract or wait until the time of performance.” Van Buren Charter Twp v Visteon Corp, 319 Mich App 538 , 555; 904 NW2d 192 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025“Under the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation: if, before the time of performance, a party to a contract unequivocally declares the intent not to perform, the innocent party has the option to either sue immediately for the breach of contract or wait until the time of performance.” Van Buren Charter Twp v Visteon Corp, 319 Mich App 538 , 555; 904 NW2d 192 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stoddard v. Manufacturers National Bank
green
2 sentences2024Moreover, under the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation, “if, before the time of performance, a party to a contract unequivocally declares the intent not to perform, the innocent party has the option to either sue immediately for the breach of contract or wait until the time of performance.” Stoddard v Mfr Nat’l Bank of Grand Rapids, 234 Mich App 140, 163 ; 593 NW2d 630 (1999). 2024Moreover, under the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation, “if, before the time of performance, a party to a contract unequivocally declares the intent not to perform, the innocent party has the option to either sue immediately for the breach of contract or wait until the time of performance.” Stoddard v Mfr Nat’l Bank of Grand Rapids, 234 Mich App 140, 163 ; 593 NW2d 630 (1999). | 4 | 2017–2024 |
Paul v. Bogle
green
2 sentences2024“In determining whether an anticipatory breach has occurred, it is the party’s intention manifested by acts and words that is controlling, and not any secret intention that may be held.” Paul v Bogle, 193 Mich App 479, 493 ; 484 NW2d 728 (1992). 2024“In determining whether an anticipatory breach has occurred, it is the party’s intention manifested by acts and words that is controlling, and not any secret intention that may be held.” Paul v Bogle, 193 Mich App 479, 493 ; 484 NW2d 728 (1992). | 4 | 2017–2024 |
Jackson v. American Can Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 645-646 , 362 N.W.2d 857 ; Brauer v. Hobbs, 151 Mich.App. 769, 776 , 391 N.W.2d 482 (1986), citing Jackson, supra at 374-375 . 1999Id. at 645-646 ; Brauer v Hobbs, 151 Mich App 769, 776 ; 391 NW2d 482 (1986), citing Jackson, supra at 374-375 . | 3 | 1985–1999 |
Carpenter v. Smith
green
2 sentences2017“In determining whether an anticipatory breach has occurred, it is the party’s intention manifested by acts and words that is controlling, and not any secret intention that may be held.” Paul v Bogle, 193 Mich App 479, 493-494 ; 484 NW2d 728 (1992), citing Carpenter v Smith, 147 Mich App 560, 565 ; 383 NW2d 248 (1985). 2017“In determining whether an anticipatory breach has occurred, it is the party’s intention manifested by acts and words that is controlling, and not any secret intention that may be held.” Paul v Bogle, 193 Mich App 479, 493-494 ; 484 NW2d 728 (1992), citing Carpenter v Smith, 147 Mich App 560, 565 ; 383 NW2d 248 (1985). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Petovello v. Murray
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 645-646 , 362 N.W.2d 857 ; Brauer v. Hobbs, 151 Mich.App. 769, 776 , 391 N.W.2d 482 (1986), citing Jackson, supra at 374-375 . 1999Id. at 645-646 ; Brauer v Hobbs, 151 Mich App 769, 776 ; 391 NW2d 482 (1986), citing Jackson, supra at 374-375 . | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Brauer v. Hobbs
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 645-646 ; Brauer v Hobbs, 151 Mich App 769, 776 ; 391 NW2d 482 (1986), citing Jackson, supra at 374-375 . 1999Id. at 645-646 ; Brauer v Hobbs, 151 Mich App 769, 776 ; 391 NW2d 482 (1986), citing Jackson, supra at 374-375 . | 2 | 1999–1999 |
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.