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 1980–1992 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 |
|---|---|---|
Swiney v. Malone Freight Linesgreen1 sentence1992Finally, the Tennessee Court of Appeals held the defendants’ claim that the plaintiff wife’s failure to testify precluded her recovery on a claim of loss of consortium to be meritless, relying on the "proof as to the injuries and disabilities of her husband . . . . ” Swiney v Malone Freight Lines, 545 SW2d 112, 117 (Tenn App, 1976). | 1 | 1 |
Southfield Police Officers Ass'n v. Southfieldgreen2 sentences1989The dismissal of the petition was proper. 9 Affirmed. 1 1978 PA 404 ; see specifically MCL 388.1708(2); MSA 15.1919 (1008) (2). 2 "Out of formula” refers to school districts receiving no allocation under MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921). 3 Const 1963, art 6, § 28; United Teachers of Flint v Flint School Dist, 158 Mich App 138, 142 ; 404 NW2d 637 (1986), lv den 428 Mich 902 (1987). 4 West Ottawa Ed Ass’n v West Ottawa Public Schools Bd of Ed, 126 Mich App 306, 313 ; 337 NW2d 533 (1983). 5 In re Fruitport Community Schools, 1981 MERC Lab Op 682; In re Lakeview Public Schools, 1977 MERC Lab Op 899; 1989The dismissal of the petition was proper. 9 Affirmed. 1 1978 PA 404 ; see specifically MCL 388.1708(2); MSA 15.1919 (1008) (2). 2 "Out of formula” refers to school districts receiving no allocation under MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921). 3 Const 1963, art 6, § 28; United Teachers of Flint v Flint School Dist, 158 Mich App 138, 142 ; 404 NW2d 637 (1986), lv den 428 Mich 902 (1987). 4 West Ottawa Ed Ass’n v West Ottawa Public Schools Bd of Ed, 126 Mich App 306, 313 ; 337 NW2d 533 (1983). 5 In re Fruitport Community Schools, 1981 MERC Lab Op 682; In re Lakeview Public Schools, 1977 MERC Lab Op 899; | 1 | 1 |
Rusinek v. Schultz, Snyder & Steele Lumber Co.green2 sentences1988See also Rusinek v Schultz, Snyder & Steele Lumber Co, 411 Mich 502, 508 ; 309 NW2d 163 (1981).] . 1988See also Rusinek v Schultz, Snyder & Steele Lumber Co, 411 Mich 502, 508 ; 309 NW2d 163 (1981).] . | 1 | 1 |
Schreiner v. Fruitgreen1 sentence1987Schreiner v Fruit, 519 P2d 462, 466 (Alas, 1974); Dems v Western Maryland R Co, 247 Md 95; 231 A2d 514 (1967); Nicholson v Hugh Chatham Memorial Hospital, Inc, 300 NC 295; 266 SE2d 818 (1980); Ekalo v Constructive Service Corp of America, 46 NJ 82; 215 A2d 1 (1965); Millington v Southeastern Elevator Co, 22 NY2d 498 ; 239 NE2d 897 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Snow v. Freemangreen1 sentence1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 | 1 | 1 |
Advisory Opinion Re Constitutionality of 1972 PA 294green2 sentences1982Affirmed. 1 MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1). 2 Harris Range’s claim on appeal appears to be limited to a consortium claim, derivative of Irene Range’s action. 3 Armstrong v LeBlanc, 395 Mich 526, 532 ; 236 NW2d 419 (1975); Cassidy v McGovern, 98 Mich App 100, 102 ; 296 NW2d 200 (1980), lv den 410 Mich 861 (1980); Heller v Select Lake City Theatre Operating Co, 187 F2d 649 (CA 7, 1951). 4 389 Mich 441, 477-478 ; 208 NW2d 469 (1973). 1982Affirmed. 1 MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1). 2 Harris Range’s claim on appeal appears to be limited to a consortium claim, derivative of Irene Range’s action. 3 Armstrong v LeBlanc, 395 Mich 526, 532 ; 236 NW2d 419 (1975); Cassidy v McGovern, 98 Mich App 100, 102 ; 296 NW2d 200 (1980), lv den 410 Mich 861 (1980); Heller v Select Lake City Theatre Operating Co, 187 F2d 649 (CA 7, 1951). 4 389 Mich 441, 477-478 ; 208 NW2d 469 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rutherford v. State
green
1 sentence1992The court reasoned: "We see no reason why the competent testimony of the injured spouse or a third party cannot be used to support a consortium claim, though undoubtedly a claimant’s direct testimony would be both more definitive and more persuasive.” Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
West Ottawa Education Ass'n v. West Ottawa Public Schools Board of Education
green
2 sentences1989The dismissal of the petition was proper. 9 Affirmed. 1 1978 PA 404 ; see specifically MCL 388.1708(2); MSA 15.1919 (1008) (2). 2 "Out of formula” refers to school districts receiving no allocation under MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921). 3 Const 1963, art 6, § 28; United Teachers of Flint v Flint School Dist, 158 Mich App 138, 142 ; 404 NW2d 637 (1986), lv den 428 Mich 902 (1987). 4 West Ottawa Ed Ass’n v West Ottawa Public Schools Bd of Ed, 126 Mich App 306, 313 ; 337 NW2d 533 (1983). 5 In re Fruitport Community Schools, 1981 MERC Lab Op 682; In re Lakeview Public Schools, 1977 MERC Lab Op 899; 1989The dismissal of the petition was proper. 9 Affirmed. 1 1978 PA 404 ; see specifically MCL 388.1708(2); MSA 15.1919 (1008) (2). 2 "Out of formula” refers to school districts receiving no allocation under MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921). 3 Const 1963, art 6, § 28; United Teachers of Flint v Flint School Dist, 158 Mich App 138, 142 ; 404 NW2d 637 (1986), lv den 428 Mich 902 (1987). 4 West Ottawa Ed Ass’n v West Ottawa Public Schools Bd of Ed, 126 Mich App 306, 313 ; 337 NW2d 533 (1983). 5 In re Fruitport Community Schools, 1981 MERC Lab Op 682; In re Lakeview Public Schools, 1977 MERC Lab Op 899; | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United Teachers v. Flint School District
neutral
2 sentences1989The dismissal of the petition was proper. 9 Affirmed. 1 1978 PA 404 ; see specifically MCL 388.1708(2); MSA 15.1919 (1008) (2). 2 "Out of formula” refers to school districts receiving no allocation under MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921). 3 Const 1963, art 6, § 28; United Teachers of Flint v Flint School Dist, 158 Mich App 138, 142 ; 404 NW2d 637 (1986), lv den 428 Mich 902 (1987). 4 West Ottawa Ed Ass’n v West Ottawa Public Schools Bd of Ed, 126 Mich App 306, 313 ; 337 NW2d 533 (1983). 5 In re Fruitport Community Schools, 1981 MERC Lab Op 682; In re Lakeview Public Schools, 1977 MERC Lab Op 899; 1989The dismissal of the petition was proper. 9 Affirmed. 1 1978 PA 404 ; see specifically MCL 388.1708(2); MSA 15.1919 (1008) (2). 2 "Out of formula” refers to school districts receiving no allocation under MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921). 3 Const 1963, art 6, § 28; United Teachers of Flint v Flint School Dist, 158 Mich App 138, 142 ; 404 NW2d 637 (1986), lv den 428 Mich 902 (1987). 4 West Ottawa Ed Ass’n v West Ottawa Public Schools Bd of Ed, 126 Mich App 306, 313 ; 337 NW2d 533 (1983). 5 In re Fruitport Community Schools, 1981 MERC Lab Op 682; In re Lakeview Public Schools, 1977 MERC Lab Op 899; | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Shockley Ex Rel. Shockley v. Prier
green
2 sentences1988We also note that other jurisdictions are evenly split in terms of recognizing the parent's consortium action as a matter of common law since Wisconsin became the first jurisdiction to do so in Schockley, supra . [25] However, we find it significant that among those jurisdictions which have declined to recognize the parent's action since Schockley , all have based their decisions on the same or similar policy considerations which impel us to the result we reach in this case. [26] *299 IV It is clear to us that further extension of a negligent tortfeasor's liability involves a variety of comple 1988We also note that other jurisdictions are evenly split in terms of recognizing the parent’s consortium action as a matter of common law since Wisconsin became the first jurisdiction to do so in Schockley, supra. 25 However, we find it significant that among those jurisdictions which have declined to recognize the parent’s action since Schockley , all have based their decisions on the same or similar policy considerations which impel us to the result we reach in this case. 26 IV It is clear to us that further extension of a negligent tortfeasor’s liability involves a variety of complex social p | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Ekalo v. Constructive Serv. Corp. of America
green
1 sentence1987Schreiner v Fruit, 519 P2d 462, 466 (Alas, 1974); Dems v Western Maryland R Co, 247 Md 95; 231 A2d 514 (1967); Nicholson v Hugh Chatham Memorial Hospital, Inc, 300 NC 295; 266 SE2d 818 (1980); Ekalo v Constructive Service Corp of America, 46 NJ 82; 215 A2d 1 (1965); Millington v Southeastern Elevator Co, 22 NY2d 498 ; 239 NE2d 897 (1968). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Deems v. Western Maryland Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1987Schreiner v Fruit, 519 P2d 462, 466 (Alas, 1974); Dems v Western Maryland R Co, 247 Md 95; 231 A2d 514 (1967); Nicholson v Hugh Chatham Memorial Hospital, Inc, 300 NC 295; 266 SE2d 818 (1980); Ekalo v Constructive Service Corp of America, 46 NJ 82; 215 A2d 1 (1965); Millington v Southeastern Elevator Co, 22 NY2d 498 ; 239 NE2d 897 (1968). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Millington v. Southeastern Elevator Co.
green
2 sentences1987Schreiner v Fruit, 519 P2d 462, 466 (Alas, 1974); Dems v Western Maryland R Co, 247 Md 95; 231 A2d 514 (1967); Nicholson v Hugh Chatham Memorial Hospital, Inc, 300 NC 295; 266 SE2d 818 (1980); Ekalo v Constructive Service Corp of America, 46 NJ 82; 215 A2d 1 (1965); Millington v Southeastern Elevator Co, 22 NY2d 498 ; 239 NE2d 897 (1968). 1987Schreiner v Fruit, 519 P2d 462, 466 (Alas, 1974); Dems v Western Maryland R Co, 247 Md 95; 231 A2d 514 (1967); Nicholson v Hugh Chatham Memorial Hospital, Inc, 300 NC 295; 266 SE2d 818 (1980); Ekalo v Constructive Service Corp of America, 46 NJ 82; 215 A2d 1 (1965); Millington v Southeastern Elevator Co, 22 NY2d 498 ; 239 NE2d 897 (1968). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Nicholson v. Hugh Chatham Memorial Hospital, Inc.
green
1 sentence1987Schreiner v Fruit, 519 P2d 462, 466 (Alas, 1974); Dems v Western Maryland R Co, 247 Md 95; 231 A2d 514 (1967); Nicholson v Hugh Chatham Memorial Hospital, Inc, 300 NC 295; 266 SE2d 818 (1980); Ekalo v Constructive Service Corp of America, 46 NJ 82; 215 A2d 1 (1965); Millington v Southeastern Elevator Co, 22 NY2d 498 ; 239 NE2d 897 (1968). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Armstrong v. LeBlanc
green
2 sentences1982Affirmed. 1 MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1). 2 Harris Range’s claim on appeal appears to be limited to a consortium claim, derivative of Irene Range’s action. 3 Armstrong v LeBlanc, 395 Mich 526, 532 ; 236 NW2d 419 (1975); Cassidy v McGovern, 98 Mich App 100, 102 ; 296 NW2d 200 (1980), lv den 410 Mich 861 (1980); Heller v Select Lake City Theatre Operating Co, 187 F2d 649 (CA 7, 1951). 4 389 Mich 441, 477-478 ; 208 NW2d 469 (1973). 1982Affirmed. 1 MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1). 2 Harris Range’s claim on appeal appears to be limited to a consortium claim, derivative of Irene Range’s action. 3 Armstrong v LeBlanc, 395 Mich 526, 532 ; 236 NW2d 419 (1975); Cassidy v McGovern, 98 Mich App 100, 102 ; 296 NW2d 200 (1980), lv den 410 Mich 861 (1980); Heller v Select Lake City Theatre Operating Co, 187 F2d 649 (CA 7, 1951). 4 389 Mich 441, 477-478 ; 208 NW2d 469 (1973). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Biafore v. Baker
neutral
1 sentence1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Harris v. McVickers
green
2 sentences1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Vitale v. Danylak
green
2 sentences1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Brooks v. Reed
neutral
2 sentences1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Cassidy v. McGovern
neutral
2 sentences1982Affirmed. 1 MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1). 2 Harris Range’s claim on appeal appears to be limited to a consortium claim, derivative of Irene Range’s action. 3 Armstrong v LeBlanc, 395 Mich 526, 532 ; 236 NW2d 419 (1975); Cassidy v McGovern, 98 Mich App 100, 102 ; 296 NW2d 200 (1980), lv den 410 Mich 861 (1980); Heller v Select Lake City Theatre Operating Co, 187 F2d 649 (CA 7, 1951). 4 389 Mich 441, 477-478 ; 208 NW2d 469 (1973). 1982Affirmed. 1 MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1). 2 Harris Range’s claim on appeal appears to be limited to a consortium claim, derivative of Irene Range’s action. 3 Armstrong v LeBlanc, 395 Mich 526, 532 ; 236 NW2d 419 (1975); Cassidy v McGovern, 98 Mich App 100, 102 ; 296 NW2d 200 (1980), lv den 410 Mich 861 (1980); Heller v Select Lake City Theatre Operating Co, 187 F2d 649 (CA 7, 1951). 4 389 Mich 441, 477-478 ; 208 NW2d 469 (1973). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Hermann v. Haney
neutral
2 sentences1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Fidler v. MacKinder
neutral
2 sentences1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Abraham v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Javis v. Board of Education of the School District
green
2 sentences1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Burk v. Warren
green
2 sentences1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 1982See, also, Ransom and Sinas, No-Fault: Major Issues of the Moment, 61 Mich B J 618, 620-624 (1982), for a summary and appraisal of the threshold injury concept. 5 Vitale v Danylak, 74 Mich App 615 ; 254 NW2d 593 (1977), lv den 403 Mich 848 (1978) (stiff neck); Harris v McVickers, 88 Mich App 508 ; 276 NW2d 629 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 929 (1979) (headaches, stiff neck, and knee pains); Brooks v Reed, 93 Mich App 166 ; 286 NW2d 81 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 862 (1981) (arm injury); Hermann v Haney, 98 Mich App 445 ; 296 NW2d 278 (1980), lv gtd 410 Mich 921 (1981) (bruises and bump on forehead). 6 1 | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Sakorraphos v. Eastman Kodak Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences1980GCR 1963, 516, cf., Sakorraphos v Eastman Kodak Stores, Inc, 367 Mich 96, 99 ; 116 NW2d 227 (1962). 1980GCR 1963, 516, cf., Sakorraphos v Eastman Kodak Stores, Inc, 367 Mich 96, 99 ; 116 NW2d 227 (1962). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.