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 1907–2023 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. Den Uylgreen1 sentence1949See People v. Den Dyl, 320 Mich. 477 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strack v. Miller
green
2 sentences1989As was stated by the Supreme Court in Toledo, Saginaw & Muskegon R Co v Shafer, 190 Mich 89, 91 ; 155 NW 712 (1916): "An examination of the drain law clearly discloses that it was the intention of the legislature to have all matters pertaining to the locating and constructing of a drain, in the absence of fraud, tried out, determined, and forever settled in the direct proceedings to establish the drain or on certiorari, as provided for in the statute.” The Supreme Court has also stated that the purpose of the statute limiting review to certiorari within 20 days "undoubtedly is to give an oppor 1989As was stated by the Supreme Court in Toledo, Saginaw & Muskegon R Co v Shafer, 190 Mich 89, 91 ; 155 NW 712 (1916): "An examination of the drain law clearly discloses that it was the intention of the legislature to have all matters pertaining to the locating and constructing of a drain, in the absence of fraud, tried out, determined, and forever settled in the direct proceedings to establish the drain or on certiorari, as provided for in the statute.” The Supreme Court has also stated that the purpose of the statute limiting review to certiorari within 20 days "undoubtedly is to give an oppor | 5 | 1907–1989 |
Toledo, Saginaw & Muskegon Railway Co. v. Shafer
neutral
2 sentences1989As was stated by the Supreme Court in Toledo, Saginaw & Muskegon R Co v Shafer, 190 Mich 89, 91 ; 155 NW 712 (1916): "An examination of the drain law clearly discloses that it was the intention of the legislature to have all matters pertaining to the locating and constructing of a drain, in the absence of fraud, tried out, determined, and forever settled in the direct proceedings to establish the drain or on certiorari, as provided for in the statute.” The Supreme Court has also stated that the purpose of the statute limiting review to certiorari within 20 days "undoubtedly is to give an oppor 1989As was stated by the Supreme Court in Toledo, Saginaw & Muskegon R Co v Shafer, 190 Mich 89, 91 ; 155 NW 712 (1916): "An examination of the drain law clearly discloses that it was the intention of the legislature to have all matters pertaining to the locating and constructing of a drain, in the absence of fraud, tried out, determined, and forever settled in the direct proceedings to establish the drain or on certiorari, as provided for in the statute.” The Supreme Court has also stated that the purpose of the statute limiting review to certiorari within 20 days "undoubtedly is to give an oppor | 2 | 1981–1989 |
Auditor General v. Bolt
green
2 sentences1934In Auditor General v. Bolt, 147 Mich. 283 , this court said, quoting from Strack v. Miller, 134 Mich. 311 : “The purpose of the statute undoubtedly is to give an opportunity to have a speedy hearing upon any question of jurisdiction or any question of irregularity.” In Township of Clarence v. Dickinson, 151 Mich. 270 , a suit in equity was brought to enjoin the construction of a drain for the reason that, although it was called in the application therefor “the extension of an existing drain,” it was intended thereby to construct a new drain, and, as it did not have the number of signatures req 1924This court has twice said that: “The purpose of the statute undoubtedly is to give an opportunity to have a speedy hearing upon any question of jurisdiction or any question of irregularity.” Struck v. Miller, 134 Mich. 311 ; Auditor General v. Bolt, 147 Mich. 283 . | 2 | 1924–1934 |
Hammel v. Speaker of the House of Representatives
green
2 sentences2023Further, “[t]he purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a final hearing regarding the parties’ rights.” Hammel v Speaker of House of Representatives, 297 Mich App 641, 647-648 ; 825 NW2d 616 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2023Further, “[t]he purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a final hearing regarding the parties’ rights.” Hammel v Speaker of House of Representatives, 297 Mich App 641, 647-648 ; 825 NW2d 616 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Township of Clarence v. Dickinson
neutral
1 sentence1934In Auditor General v. Bolt, 147 Mich. 283 , this court said, quoting from Strack v. Miller, 134 Mich. 311 : “The purpose of the statute undoubtedly is to give an opportunity to have a speedy hearing upon any question of jurisdiction or any question of irregularity.” In Township of Clarence v. Dickinson, 151 Mich. 270 , a suit in equity was brought to enjoin the construction of a drain for the reason that, although it was called in the application therefor “the extension of an existing drain,” it was intended thereby to construct a new drain, and, as it did not have the number of signatures req | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.