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 1 courts 2007–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Szymborski v. Slatinagreen2 sentences2023However, “[i]f the evidence is less than clear, positive and credible, the question whether such presumption has been overcome should be settled—on proper instruction of course—in the jury room.” Szymborski, 386 Mich at 341 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2020“When the trial court undertakes to eliminate from the jury’s consideration a statutory presumption as a matter of law, at the very least there must be clear, positive, and credible evidence opposing the presumption.” White I, 275 Mich app at 621-622, citing Petrosky v Dziurman, 367 Mich 539 ; 116 NW2d 748 (1962), and Szymborski, 386 Mich at 341 , where our Supreme Court concluded that where evidence is less than clear, positive, and credible, the question of whether a statutory presumption can be overcome should be settled by a jury. | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
White v. Taylor Distributing Co.
green
2 sentences2025And “[w]hen the trial court undertakes to eliminate from the jury’s consideration a statutory presumption as a matter of law, at the very least there must be clear, positive, and credible evidence opposing the presumption.” Id. at 621 . 2025Furthermore, “[w]hen the trial court undertakes to eliminate from the jury’s consideration a statutory presumption as a matter of law, at the very least there must be clear, positive, and credible evidence opposing the presumption.” White, 275 Mich App at 621 . | 5 | 2015–2025 |
Petrosky v. Dziurman
green
2 sentences2020“When the trial court undertakes to eliminate from the jury’s consideration a statutory presumption as a matter of law, at the very least there must be clear, positive, and credible evidence opposing the presumption.” White I, 275 Mich app at 621-622, citing Petrosky v Dziurman, 367 Mich 539 ; 116 NW2d 748 (1962), and Szymborski, 386 Mich at 341 , where our Supreme Court concluded that where evidence is less than clear, positive, and credible, the question of whether a statutory presumption can be overcome should be settled by a jury. 2020“When the trial court undertakes to eliminate from the jury’s consideration a statutory presumption as a matter of law, at the very least there must be clear, positive, and credible evidence opposing the presumption.” White I, 275 Mich app at 621-622, citing Petrosky v Dziurman, 367 Mich 539 ; 116 NW2d 748 (1962), and Szymborski, 386 Mich at 341 , where our Supreme Court concluded that where evidence is less than clear, positive, and credible, the question of whether a statutory presumption can be overcome should be settled by a jury. | 3 | 2007–2020 |
Socony Vacuum Oil Co. v. Marvin
green
2 sentences2018Under the sudden-emergency doctrine: One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence. [White, 275 Mich App at 622 , quoting Socony Vacuum Oil Co v Marvin, 313 Mich 528, 546 ; 21 NW2d 841 (1946).] “To come within the purview of the sudden-emergency doctrine, the circum 2018Under the sudden-emergency doctrine: One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence. [White, 275 Mich App at 622 , quoting Socony Vacuum Oil Co v Marvin, 313 Mich 528, 546 ; 21 NW2d 841 (1946).] “To come within the purview of the sudden-emergency doctrine, the circum | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.