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 2015–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Muci v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen2 sentences2022See Muci v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 478 Mich 178, 182 ; 732 NW2d 88 (2007) (stating that a medical examination requested by the defense is “customarily referred to as a defense medical examination or a DME.”). 2 A Farm Bureau investigator stated that he had contacted Jones and Jones “advised that the owner of the involved vehicle is a friend of his and that he does not want to pursue any further with this first-party claim with the MACP” and that “he did not want to provide a statement to the investigator and wanted the claim to be dropped.” -2- both of which had been noticed by Farm Bureau 2022See Muci v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 478 Mich 178, 182 ; 732 NW2d 88 (2007) (stating that a medical examination requested by the defense is “customarily referred to as a defense medical examination or a DME.”). 2 A Farm Bureau investigator stated that he had contacted Jones and Jones “advised that the owner of the involved vehicle is a friend of his and that he does not want to pursue any further with this first-party claim with the MACP” and that “he did not want to provide a statement to the investigator and wanted the claim to be dropped.” -2- both of which had been noticed by Farm Bureau | 2 | 2 |
Adam v. Bellgreen2 sentences2022Adam, 311 Mich App at 532-533 . 2015Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Holman v. RASAKgreen1 sentence2019See Holman, 486 Mich at 436-437 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Monat v. State Farm Insurance
green
2 sentences2018In Monat v State Farm Ins Co, 469 Mich 679 , 680- 681, 695; 677 NW2d 843 (2004), our Supreme Court held that collateral estoppel barred a plaintiff’s first-party claim after a no-cause-of-action jury verdict was reached on the third-party claim. 2018In Monat v State Farm Ins Co, 469 Mich 679 , 680- 681, 695; 677 NW2d 843 (2004), our Supreme Court held that collateral estoppel barred a plaintiff’s first-party claim after a no-cause-of-action jury verdict was reached on the third-party claim. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Covenant Medical Center, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
neutral
1 sentence2017The Supreme Court granted State Farm’s application for leave to appeal. 499 Mich 941 (2016). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.