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 1 courts 2010–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tenneco Inc. v. Amerisure Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2016But, the doctrine only is “applicable in cases in which there is an unexcused or unexplained delay in commencing an action and a corresponding change of material condition that results in prejudice to a party.” Pub Health Dep’t v Rivergate Manor, 452 Mich 495, 507 ; 550 NW2d 515 (1996); see also Tenneco Inc v Amerisure Mut Ins Co, 281 Mich App 429, 457 ; 761 NW2d 846 (2008) (“For laches to apply, inexcusable delay in bringing suit must have resulted in prejudice.”). 2016But, the doctrine only is “applicable in cases in which there is an unexcused or unexplained delay in commencing an action and a corresponding change of material condition that results in prejudice to a party.” Pub Health Dep’t v Rivergate Manor, 452 Mich 495, 507 ; 550 NW2d 515 (1996); see also Tenneco Inc v Amerisure Mut Ins Co, 281 Mich App 429, 457 ; 761 NW2d 846 (2008) (“For laches to apply, inexcusable delay in bringing suit must have resulted in prejudice.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Attorney General v. Powerpick Player's Club of Michigan, LLC
green
2 sentences2024“The doctrine of laches is triggered by the plaintiff’s failure to do something that should have been done under the circumstances or failure to claim or enforce a right at the proper time.” PowerPick Club, 287 Mich App at 51 . 2021“The doctrine of laches is triggered by the plaintiff’s failure to do something that should have been done under the circumstances or failure to claim or enforce a right at the proper time.” Attorney General v PowerPick Player’s Club of Mich, LLC, 287 Mich App 13, 51 ; 783 NW2d 515 (2010). | 6 | 2016–2024 |
Department of Public Health v. Rivergate Manor
green
2 sentences2016However, the doctrine is only “applicable in cases in which there is an unexcused or unexplained delay in -13- commencing an action and a corresponding change of material condition that results in prejudice to a party.” Pub Health Dep’t v Rivergate Manor, 452 Mich 495, 507 ; 550 NW2d 515 (1996). 2016However, the doctrine is only “applicable in cases in which there is an unexcused or unexplained delay in -13- commencing an action and a corresponding change of material condition that results in prejudice to a party.” Pub Health Dep’t v Rivergate Manor, 452 Mich 495, 507 ; 550 NW2d 515 (1996). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Yankee Springs Township v. Fox
green
1 sentence2024“The application of the doctrine of laches requires the passage of time combined with a change in condition that would make it inequitable to enforce the claim against the defendant.” Yankee Springs Twp, 264 Mich App at 612 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Schmude Oil Co. v. Omar Operating Co.
green
2 sentences2010Schmude Oil Co. v. Omar Operating Co., 184 Mich.App. 574, 583 , 458 N.W.2d 659 (1990). 2010Schmude Oil Co. v. Omar Operating Co., 184 Mich.App. 574, 583 , 458 N.W.2d 659 (1990). | 1 | 2010–2010 |