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 1901–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Visaritiesgreen2 sentences1976In People v Visarities, 220 App Div 657 ; 222 NYS 401, 403 (1927), the New York Court construed a similar statute and found that an iron bar was not a bludgeon because: "To base a conviction on mere possession, it must clearly appear that the thing possessed answers the description of one of the prohibited instruments or weapons.” California has a similar statute, and yet its Legislature found it necessary to pass a law specifically dealing with karate sticks. 3 The clear implication is that no other law adequately dealt with them. 1976In People v Visarities, 220 App Div 657 ; 222 NYS 401, 403 (1927), the New York Court construed a similar statute and found that an iron bar was not a bludgeon because: "To base a conviction on mere possession, it must clearly appear that the thing possessed answers the description of one of the prohibited instruments or weapons.” California has a similar statute, and yet its Legislature found it necessary to pass a law specifically dealing with karate sticks. 3 The clear implication is that no other law adequately dealt with them. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stombaugh v. Peerless Wire Fence Co.
green
2 sentences1935We are of opinion that an employee who receives an injury in the nature of a hernia, while engaged in his usual and ordinary employment, without the intervention of any untoward or accidental happening, is not within the provisions of the compensation act, which as we have held provides compensation for accidental injury only.” See Stombaugh v. Peerless Wire Fence Co., 198 Mich. 445 ; Tackles v. Bryant & Detwiler Co., 200 Mich. 350 ; Sinkiewicz v. Lee & Cady, 254 Mich. 218 , all lifting cases and where awards were vacated. 1918We are of opinion that an employee who receives an injury in the nature of a hernia, while engaged in his usual and ordinary employment, without the intervention of any untoward or accidental happening, is not within the provisions of the compensation act, which as we have held provides compensation for accidental injury only.” See, also, Van Gorder v. Motorcar Co., 195 Mich. 588 ; Stombaugh v. Fence Co., 198 Mich. 445 ; Johnson v. Mining Co., 199 Mich. 218 . | 2 | 1918–1935 |
People v. Burk
green
1 sentence2022In other words, this is what we call the major crime, felonious assault.” Id. at 488 . -3- Defendant argues that the term “embarrass” is not contemplated in Burk making it improper for that term to be featured in the criminal jury instruction. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Samuel
green
1 sentence1980The example given for a case to be excluded by its willful and wanton nature was Federal Underwriters Exchange v Samuel, 138 Tex 444; 160 SW2d 61 (1942), wherein the assailant-claimant armed himself with an iron bar and a knife and attacked a fellow employee, and was injured when that person defended himself. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Sinkiewicz v. Lee & Cady
neutral
1 sentence1935We are of opinion that an employee who receives an injury in the nature of a hernia, while engaged in his usual and ordinary employment, without the intervention of any untoward or accidental happening, is not within the provisions of the compensation act, which as we have held provides compensation for accidental injury only.” See Stombaugh v. Peerless Wire Fence Co., 198 Mich. 445 ; Tackles v. Bryant & Detwiler Co., 200 Mich. 350 ; Sinkiewicz v. Lee & Cady, 254 Mich. 218 , all lifting cases and where awards were vacated. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Tackles v. Bryant & Detwiler Co.
neutral
1 sentence1935We are of opinion that an employee who receives an injury in the nature of a hernia, while engaged in his usual and ordinary employment, without the intervention of any untoward or accidental happening, is not within the provisions of the compensation act, which as we have held provides compensation for accidental injury only.” See Stombaugh v. Peerless Wire Fence Co., 198 Mich. 445 ; Tackles v. Bryant & Detwiler Co., 200 Mich. 350 ; Sinkiewicz v. Lee & Cady, 254 Mich. 218 , all lifting cases and where awards were vacated. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
People v. Ecarius
green
1 sentence1923In People v. Ecarius, 124 Mich. 616 , in which the defendant was charged with committing a murder with an iron bar as a weapon, he was required, upon cross-examination, to place the iron bar in his pocket for the purpose of showing how it might have been concealed. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Van Gorder v. Packard Motorcar Co.
neutral
1 sentence1918We are of opinion that an employee who receives an injury in the nature of a hernia, while engaged in his usual and ordinary employment, without the intervention of any untoward or accidental happening, is not within the provisions of the compensation act, which as we have held provides compensation for accidental injury only.” See, also, Van Gorder v. Motorcar Co., 195 Mich. 588 ; Stombaugh v. Fence Co., 198 Mich. 445 ; Johnson v. Mining Co., 199 Mich. 218 . | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Johnson v. Mary Charlotte Mining Co.
neutral
1 sentence1918We are of opinion that an employee who receives an injury in the nature of a hernia, while engaged in his usual and ordinary employment, without the intervention of any untoward or accidental happening, is not within the provisions of the compensation act, which as we have held provides compensation for accidental injury only.” See, also, Van Gorder v. Motorcar Co., 195 Mich. 588 ; Stombaugh v. Fence Co., 198 Mich. 445 ; Johnson v. Mining Co., 199 Mich. 218 . | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor
green
1 sentence1901That provision in the fourteenth amendment ‘was not intended to prevent a State from adjusting its system of taxation irj all proper and reasonable ways,’ nor was that amendment ‘ intended to compel a State to adopt an iron rule of equal taxation.’ * * * Considering, as we do, that the unit rule may be applied to express companies without disregarding any other federal restriction, we think it necessarily follows that this law is not open to the objection of denying the equal protection of the laws.” Mr. Justice Brewer, in Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 166 U. S. 185 (17 Sup. Ct. 604 | 1 | 1901–1901 |
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.