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 1902–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Salas v. Clementsgreen2 sentences1997In Salas at 109 , this Court noted that “departure from the literal construction of a statute is justified when such construction would produce an absurd and unjust result and would be clearly inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the act in question.” Thus, this Court created an exception to the name and retain provision where the identity of the allegedly intoxicated individual was unknown because, in such a situation, there could be no collusion between the plaintiff and the alleged intoxicated individual. 3 Id. 1997In Salas at 109, 247 N.W.2d 889 , this Court noted that "departure from the literal construction of a statute is justified when such construction would produce an absurd and unjust result and would be clearly inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the act in question." Thus, this Court created an exception to the name and retain provision where the identity of the allegedly intoxicated individual was unknown because, in such a situation, there could be no collusion between the plaintiff and the alleged intoxicated individual. [3] Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Latham v. Barton Malow Co.
green
2 sentences2015It was in that situation that we determined that the law should “discourage those in control of a worksite from ignoring or being careless about unsafe working conditions . . . .” Latham, 480 Mich at 112 . 2015It was in that situation that we determined that the law should “discourage those in control of a worksite from ignoring or being careless about unsafe working conditions . . . .” Latham, 480 Mich at 112 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. McCoy
green
2 sentences2002As our Supreme Court explained in People v Reed, 453 Mich 685, 691-692 ; 556 NW2d 858 (1996): *328 In People v McCoy, supra, this Court created a rule that a trial judge may have an obligation to give a cautionary instruction sua sponte on accomplice testimony in certain situations. 1996Under the circumstances, the trial court had an independent obligation to give the jury an instruction as to accomplices. [People v Servant, unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 11, 1995 (Docket Nos. 145405, 145406), slip op at 2.] We granted the prosecutor’s application for leave to appeal and ordered the defendant’s application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant to be held in abeyance. n In People v McCoy, supra, this Court created a rule that a trial judge may have an obligation to give a cautionary instruction sua sponte on accomplice testimony in certain situations. | 2 | 1996–2002 |
People v. Reed
green
2 sentences2002As our Supreme Court explained in People v Reed, 453 Mich 685, 691-692 ; 556 NW2d 858 (1996): *328 In People v McCoy, supra, this Court created a rule that a trial judge may have an obligation to give a cautionary instruction sua sponte on accomplice testimony in certain situations. 2002As our Supreme Court explained in People v Reed, 453 Mich 685, 691-692 ; 556 NW2d 858 (1996): *328 In People v McCoy, supra, this Court created a rule that a trial judge may have an obligation to give a cautionary instruction sua sponte on accomplice testimony in certain situations. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
SHAY v. JohnKAL, INC
green
2 sentences1997The only other instance where this Court created an exception to the “name and retain” provision was in Shay v JohnKal, Inc, 437 Mich 394 ; 471 NW2d 551 (1991). 1997The only other instance where this Court created an exception to the “name and retain” provision was in Shay v JohnKal, Inc, 437 Mich 394 ; 471 NW2d 551 (1991). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Riley v. Richards
green
1 sentence1997As this Court noted in Riley, supra, a case evidently filed before the effective date of the indemnification provision, "[a] separate suit for contribution ... in the case of an alleged intoxicated person with something less than a deep pocket, [is] an even more remote possibility." Riley, supra at 212, n. 4 , 404 N.W.2d 618 . [3] The only other instance where this Court created an exception to the "name and retain" provision was in Shay v. JohnKal, Inc., 437 Mich. 394 , 471 N.W.2d 551 (1991). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1989The Supreme Court held that this created a presumption of invalidity that "may be rebutted by a showing that the facts in the affidavit were presented under oath to the magistrate who authorized the issuance of the search warrant.” Id. at 366 . 1989The Supreme Court held that this created a presumption of invalidity that "may be rebutted by a showing that the facts in the affidavit were presented under oath to the magistrate who authorized the issuance of the search warrant." Id. at 366 . *335 Here we are faced with a more fundamental problem. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Redmond v. Delta Lumber Co.
neutral
2 sentences1902Redmond v. Lumber Co., 96 Mich. 545 ( 55 N. W. 1004 ). 1902Redmond v. Lumber Co., 96 Mich. 545 ( 55 N. W. 1004 ). | 1 | 1902–1902 |
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.