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.
10 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Home-Owners Ins. Co. v. Andriacchigreen2 sentences2021“Sanctions are mandatory if a court determines that a document was signed in violation of MCR 2.114.” Home-Owners Ins Co v Andriacchi, 320 Mich App 52 , 76; 903 NW2d 197 (2017). 2021“Sanctions are mandatory if a court determines that a document was signed in violation of MCR 2.114.” Home-Owners Ins Co v Andriacchi, 320 Mich App 52 , 76; 903 NW2d 197 (2017). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Guerrero v. Smith
green
2 sentences2016Regarding legal sanctions, a trial court must impose sanctions if it determines that a civil action or defense was frivolous, MCL 600.2591(1), or that a document was signed in violation of MCR 2.114(D), Guerrero v Smith, 280 Mich App 647, 678 ; 761 NW2d 723 (2008); MCR 2.114(E). 2016Regarding legal sanctions, a trial court must impose sanctions if it determines that a civil action or defense was frivolous, MCL 600.2591(1), or that a document was signed in violation of MCR 2.114(D), Guerrero v Smith, 280 Mich App 647, 678 ; 761 NW2d 723 (2008); MCR 2.114(E). | 4 | 2015–2017 |
BJ'S & SONS CONST. CO., INC. v. Van Sickle
green
2 sentences2024“The purpose of imposing sanctions for asserting frivolous claims is to deter parties and attorneys from filing documents or asserting claims and defenses that have not been sufficiently investigated and researched or that are intended to serve an improper purpose.” BJ’s & Sons Constr Co, Inc v Van Sickle, 266 Mich App 400, 405 ; 700 NW2d 432 (2005) (cleaned up). 2024“The purpose of imposing sanctions for asserting frivolous claims is to deter parties and attorneys from filing documents or asserting claims and defenses that have not been sufficiently investigated and researched or that are intended to serve an improper purpose.” BJ’s & Sons Constr Co, Inc v Van Sickle, 266 Mich App 400, 405 ; 700 NW2d 432 (2005) (cleaned up). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Jeanette Peterson v. Oakwood Healthcare Inc
green
1 sentence2024If the trial court finds that a document was signed in violation of MCR 1.109(E)(5), the trial court must “impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the document, including reasonable attorney fees.” MCR 1.109(E)(6). [Tolas Oil, ___ Mich App at ___ ; slip op at 18.] “Whether a claim was frivolous must be determined using an objective standard considering the circumstances concerning the claim at the time it wa | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Contel System Corp. v. Gores
green
2 sentences2015MCR 2.613(C); Contel Sys Corp v Gores, 183 Mich App 706, 711 ; 455 NW2d 398 (1990). 2015MCR 2.613(C); Contel Sys Corp v Gores, 183 Mich App 706, 711 ; 455 NW2d 398 (1990). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
FMB-First Michigan Bank v. Bailey
green
2 sentences2015MCR 2.114(C)(1) requires that “[e]very document of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record.” The effect of a signature of an attorney constitutes a certification that: (1) he or she has read the document; (2) to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the document is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and (3) the document is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to caus 2015MCR 2.114(C)(1) requires that “[e]very document of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record.” The effect of a signature of an attorney constitutes a certification that: (1) he or she has read the document; (2) to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the document is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and (3) the document is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to caus | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Robert a Hansen Family Trust v. Fgh Industries, LLC
green
1 sentence2014Hansen Family Trust, 279 Mich App at 486 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.