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 1989–2023 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroad v. Millergreen1 sentence2022If an engineer sees a child of tender years upon the track, or any person known to him to be, or from his appearance giving him good reason to believe that he is, insane, or badly intoxicated, or otherwise insensible of danger, or unable to avoid it, he has no right to presume that he will get out of the way, but should act upon the belief that he might not, or would not, and he should therefore take means to stop his train in time. [Lake Shore, 25 Mich at 279-280 (emphasis added).] Piskorowski did not silently overrule all this precedent. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Quinlivan v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
green
2 sentences2023The Quinlivan Court applied the same general duty standard we employ today to the specific condition of ice and snow, explaining that such a duty “will require that reasonable measures be taken within a reasonable time after an accumulation of ice and snow to diminish the hazard of the injury to the invitee.” Id. at 261 . 2023The Quinlivan Court applied the same general duty standard we employ today to the specific condition of ice and snow, explaining that such a duty “will require that reasonable measures be taken within a reasonable time after an accumulation of ice and snow to diminish the hazard of the injury to the invitee.” Id. at 261 . | 4 | 2023–2023 |
Case v. Consumers Power Co.
green
2 sentences2016It was just a reaction to an emergency.” In Case v Consumers Power Co, 463 Mich 1, 7-8 , 8 n 8; 615 NW2d 17 (2000), the Supreme Court clarified that a utility’s general duty is always one of reasonable care, but that when the risk “involvets] the dangers of unintended contact with high-voltage electricity,” the “spe cific standard of care required in order to avoid breaching the general standard” includes “an obligation to reasonably inspect and repair wires.” When the danger is of a different magnitude, as in Case, in which the danger was merely of “stray voltage” affecting the milk productio 2016It was just a reaction to an emergency.” In Case v Consumers Power Co, 463 Mich 1, 7-8 , 8 n 8; 615 NW2d 17 (2000), the Supreme Court clarified that a utility’s general duty is always one of reasonable care, but that when the risk “involvets] the dangers of unintended contact with high-voltage electricity,” the “spe cific standard of care required in order to avoid breaching the general standard” includes “an obligation to reasonably inspect and repair wires.” When the danger is of a different magnitude, as in Case, in which the danger was merely of “stray voltage” affecting the milk productio | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gibbons v. Ogden
green
1 sentence1989Gibbons v Ogden, 22 US (9 Wheat) 1, 211; 6 L Ed 23 (1824) (Marshall, C.J.). *607 Since preemption by osha is grounded in the Supremacy Clause, the question whether miosha in some way "preempts” a general criminal prosecution in this case is not subject to the same analysis. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall
green
2 sentences1989As the United States Supreme Court stated in Whirlpool v Marshall, 445 US 1, 12 ; 100 S Ct 883 ; 63 L Ed 2d 154 (1980), "the legislation’s remedial orientation is prophylactic in nature.” 5 The act does contain, however, both civil and criminal penalties that can be assessed against employers who violate either specific, promulgated standards or the general-duty clause of § 5(a)(1). 1989As the United States Supreme Court stated in Whirlpool v Marshall, 445 US 1, 12 ; 100 S Ct 883 ; 63 L Ed 2d 154 (1980), "the legislation’s remedial orientation is prophylactic in nature.” 5 The act does contain, however, both civil and criminal penalties that can be assessed against employers who violate either specific, promulgated standards or the general-duty clause of § 5(a)(1). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.
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.