316 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2026 78 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maiden v. Rozwoodgreen2 sentences2024A party moving for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) “may support the motion with affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other admissible documentary evidence, which the reviewing court must consider.” Allstate Ins Co, 321 Mich App at 551 ; citing Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 119 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). -2- “A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim based on the factual allegations in the complaint.” El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 159, citing Feyz v Mercy Mem Hosp, 475 Mich 663, 672 ; 719 NW2d 1 (2006). 2024A party moving for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) “may support the motion with affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other admissible documentary evidence, which the reviewing court must consider.” Allstate Ins Co, 321 Mich App at 551 ; citing Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 119 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). -2- “A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim based on the factual allegations in the complaint.” El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 159, citing Feyz v Mercy Mem Hosp, 475 Mich 663, 672 ; 719 NW2d 1 (2006). | 2 | 26 |
Simko v. Blakegreen2 sentences1999MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim on the pleadings alone to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief may be granted, Spiek, supra, and factual allegations contained within the plaintiffs complaint must be accepted as true, Simko v Blake, 448 Mich 648, 654 ; 532 NW2d 842 (1995). 1999MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim on the pleadings alone to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief may be granted, Spiek, supra, and factual allegations contained within the plaintiffs complaint must be accepted as true, Simko v Blake, 448 Mich 648, 654 ; 532 NW2d 842 (1995). | 2 | 9 |
Maple Grove Township v. Misteguay Creek Intercounty Drain Boardgreen2 sentences2016“A motion under ‘MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim on the pleadings alone to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief may be granted.’ ” Maple Grove Twp, 298 Mich App at 206 (citation omitted). 2016“A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim on the pleadings alone to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief may be granted.” Maple Grove Twp v Misteguay Creek Intercounty Drain Bd, 298 Mich App 200, 206 ; 828 NW2d 459 (2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 7 |
Kyocera Corp. v. Hemlock Semiconductor, LLCgreen2 sentences2017Accordingly, summary disposition was properly considered under MCR 2.116(C)(8). “ ‘MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim on the pleadings alone to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief may be granted.’ ” Kyocera Corp, 313 Mich App at 445 (citation omitted). “ ‘A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may be granted only where the claims alleged are so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). “ ‘All well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true and construed in a 2017Accordingly, summary disposition was properly considered under MCR 2.116(C)(8). “ ‘MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim on the pleadings alone to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief may be granted.’ ” Kyocera Corp, 313 Mich App at 445 (citation omitted). “ ‘A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may be granted only where the claims alleged are so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). “ ‘All well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true and construed in a | 2 | 3 |
| McLean v. City of Dearborngreen | 2 | 2 |
| Titan Insurance Company v. Hytengreen | 2 | 2 |
Bailey v. Schaafgreen2 sentences2026A. STANDARD OF REVIEW “A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim on the basis of the pleadings alone and the ruling is reviewed de novo.” Bailey v Schaaf, 494 Mich 595, 603 ; 835 NW2d 413 (2013). 2026A. STANDARD OF REVIEW “A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim on the basis of the pleadings alone and the ruling is reviewed de novo.” Bailey v Schaaf, 494 Mich 595, 603 ; 835 NW2d 413 (2013). | 1 | 47 |
Spiek v. Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2017“MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim on the pleadings alone to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief may be granted.” Spiek, 456 Mich at 337 ; MCR 2.116(G)(5). 2017“MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim on the pleadings alone to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief may be granted.” Spiek, 456 Mich at 337 ; MCR 2.116(G)(5). | 1 | 31 |
Feyz v. Mercy Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2024A party moving for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) “may support the motion with affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other admissible documentary evidence, which the reviewing court must consider.” Allstate Ins Co, 321 Mich App at 551 ; citing Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 119 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). -2- “A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim based on the factual allegations in the complaint.” El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 159, citing Feyz v Mercy Mem Hosp, 475 Mich 663, 672 ; 719 NW2d 1 (2006). 2024A party moving for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) “may support the motion with affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other admissible documentary evidence, which the reviewing court must consider.” Allstate Ins Co, 321 Mich App at 551 ; citing Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 119 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). -2- “A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim based on the factual allegations in the complaint.” El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 159, citing Feyz v Mercy Mem Hosp, 475 Mich 663, 672 ; 719 NW2d 1 (2006). | 1 | 10 |
PARKHURST HOMES, INC v. McLAUGHLINgreen2 sentences1993Parkhurst Homes, Inc v McLaughlin, 187 Mich App 357, 360 ; 466 NW2d 404 (1991). 1993Parkhurst Homes, Inc v McLaughlin, 187 Mich App 357, 360 ; 466 NW2d 404 (1991). | 1 | 4 |
Slater v. Ann Arbor Public Schools Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2023See El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 159 (“A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim based on the factual allegations in the complaint.”); Slater v Ann Arbor Pub Sch Bd of Ed, 250 Mich App 419, 425-426 ; 648 NW2d 205 (2002) (“Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) is proper when the defendant’s pleadings are so clearly untenable that as a matter of law no factual development could possibly deny the plaintiff’s right to recovery.”). 2023See El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 159 (“A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim based on the factual allegations in the complaint.”); Slater v Ann Arbor Pub Sch Bd of Ed, 250 Mich App 419, 425-426 ; 648 NW2d 205 (2002) (“Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) is proper when the defendant’s pleadings are so clearly untenable that as a matter of law no factual development could possibly deny the plaintiff’s right to recovery.”). | 1 | 3 |
| Rataj v. City of Romulusgreen | 1 | 2 |
| PT Today, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Office of Financial & Insurance Servicesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Krass v. Tri-County Security, Incgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lansing Schools Education Ass'n v. Lansing Board of Educationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Landin v. Healthsource Saginaw, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Stolberg
green
2 sentences2025“A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone.” Smith v Stolberg, 231 Mich App 256, 258 ; 586 NW2d 103 (1998). 2025“A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone.” Smith v Stolberg, 231 Mich App 256, 258 ; 586 NW2d 103 (1998). | 32 | 2001–2025 |
Formall, Inc. v. Community National Bank
green
2 sentences1990A motion brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone. *94 Formall, Inc v Community Nat’l Bank of Pontiac, 166 Mich App 772, 777 ; 421 NW2d 289 (1988). 1990A motion brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone. *94 Formall, Inc v Community Nat’l Bank of Pontiac, 166 Mich App 772, 777 ; 421 NW2d 289 (1988). | 11 | 1989–1994 |
Patterson v. Kleiman
green
2 sentences2015A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by looking at the pleadings alone, Patterson v Kleiman, 447 Mich 429, 432 ; 526 NW2d 879 (1994), and may be granted where the opposing party has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, MCR 2.116(C)(8). 2015A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by looking at the pleadings alone, Patterson v Kleiman, 447 Mich 429, 432 ; 526 NW2d 879 (1994), and may be granted where the opposing party has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, MCR 2.116(C)(8). | 10 | 1995–2020 |
Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2024Gorman v American Honda Motor Co, Inc, 302 Mich App 113, 131 ; 839 NW2d 223 (2013). 2024Gorman v American Honda Motor Co, Inc, 302 Mich App 113, 131 ; 839 NW2d 223 (2013). | 8 | 2015–2024 |
Singerman v. Municipal Service Bureau, Inc.
green
2 sentences2026A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim and is tested on the pleadings alone.” Singerman v Muni Serv Bureau, Inc, 455 Mich 135, 139 ; 565 NW2d 383 (1997). 2026A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim and is tested on the pleadings alone.” Singerman v Muni Serv Bureau, Inc, 455 Mich 135, 139 ; 565 NW2d 383 (1997). | 7 | 1998–2026 |
Todd v. Biglow
green
2 sentences1981Todd v Biglow, 51 Mich App 346, 349 ; 214 NW2d 733 (1974). 1981Todd v Biglow, 51 Mich App 346, 349 ; 214 NW2d 733 (1974). | 7 | 1976–1981 |
Beaudrie v. Henderson
green
2 sentences2005Beaudrie v Henderson, 465 Mich 124, 129 ; 631 NW2d 308 (2001). *243 A motion filed pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim on the basis of the pleadings alone. 2005Beaudrie v Henderson, 465 Mich 124, 129 ; 631 NW2d 308 (2001). *243 A motion filed pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim on the basis of the pleadings alone. | 6 | 2003–2018 |
in Re Lett Estate
green
2 sentences2024Id. 2024In re Lett Estate, 314 Mich App at 595 . | 5 | 2022–2024 |
Jackson v. Oliver
green
2 sentences2018“A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone.” Taylor v Kurapati, 236 Mich App 315, 359 ; 600 NW2d 670 (1999), quoting Jackson v Oliver, 204 Mich App 122, 125 ; 514 NW2d 195 (1994). 2018“A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone.” Taylor v Kurapati, 236 Mich App 315, 359 ; 600 NW2d 670 (1999), quoting Jackson v Oliver, 204 Mich App 122, 125 ; 514 NW2d 195 (1994). | 5 | 1998–2018 |
Taylor v. Kurapati
green
2 sentences2018“A motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone.” Taylor v Kurapati, 236 Mich App 315, 359 ; 600 NW2d 670 (1999). 2018“A motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone.” Taylor v Kurapati, 236 Mich App 315, 359 ; 600 NW2d 670 (1999). | 5 | 2015–2018 |
McHone v. Sosnowski
green
2 sentences2016Summary disposition is proper under MCR 2.116(C)(8) where “[t]he opposing party has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” MCR 2.116(C)(8). “[A] motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim as pleaded.” McHone v Sosnowski, 239 Mich App 674, 676 ; 609 NW2d 844 (2000). 2016Summary disposition is proper under MCR 2.116(C)(8) where “[t]he opposing party has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” MCR 2.116(C)(8). “[A] motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim as pleaded.” McHone v Sosnowski, 239 Mich App 674, 676 ; 609 NW2d 844 (2000). | 5 | 2003–2016 |
Stehlik v. Johnson
neutral
2 sentences2026In other words, such a motion “determines whether the opposing party’s pleadings allege a prima facie case.” Stehlik v Johnson, 206 Mich App 83, 85 ; 520 NW2d 633 (1994). 2026In other words, such a motion “determines whether the opposing party’s pleadings allege a prima facie case.” Stehlik v Johnson, 206 Mich App 83, 85 ; 520 NW2d 633 (1994). | 4 | 1995–2026 |
Dextrom v. Wexford County
green
2 sentences2024However, if a question of fact exists to the extent that factual development could provide a basis for recovery, dismissal is inappropriate. [Dextrom v Wexford Co, 287 Mich App 406, 428-429 ; 789 NW2d 211 (2010) (citations omitted).] “A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim based on the factual allegations in the complaint.” El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 159 (emphasis omitted). 2024However, if a question of fact exists to the extent that factual development could provide a basis for recovery, dismissal is inappropriate. [Dextrom v Wexford Co, 287 Mich App 406, 428-429 ; 789 NW2d 211 (2010) (citations omitted).] “A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim based on the factual allegations in the complaint.” El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 159 (emphasis omitted). | 4 | 2019–2024 |
Eason v. Coggins Memorial Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
green
2 sentences2023“A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone.” Eason v Coggins Mem Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 210 Mich App 261, 263 ; 532 NW2d 882 (1995). 2023“A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone.” Eason v Coggins Mem Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 210 Mich App 261, 263 ; 532 NW2d 882 (1995). | 4 | 1995–2023 |
Gillie v. GENESEE COUNTY TREASURER
green
2 sentences2018Gillie v Genesee Co Treasurer, 277 Mich App 333, 344 ; 745 NW2d 137 (2007). 2018Gillie v Genesee Co Treasurer, 277 Mich App 333, 344 ; 745 NW2d 137 (2007). | 4 | 2017–2018 |
Wade v. Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2017A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim and may be granted only where the claim alleged is “so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Wade v Dep’t of Corrections, 439 Mich 158, 163 ; 483 NW2d 26 (1992). “[A]n employer is not free to discharge an employee at will when the reason for the discharge contravenes public policy.” McNeil v Charlevoix Co, 275 Mich App 686, 703-704 ; 741 NW2d 27 (2007). 2017A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim and may be granted only where the claim alleged is “so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Wade v Dep’t of Corrections, 439 Mich 158, 163 ; 483 NW2d 26 (1992). “[A]n employer is not free to discharge an employee at will when the reason for the discharge contravenes public policy.” McNeil v Charlevoix Co, 275 Mich App 686, 703-704 ; 741 NW2d 27 (2007). | 4 | 1992–2017 |
Summer v. Southfield Board of Education
green
2 sentences2025“A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim on the pleadings alone to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief can be granted.” Summer v Southfield Bd of Ed, 310 Mich App 660, 668 ; 874 NW2d 150 (2015). 2025“A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim on the pleadings alone to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief can be granted.” Summer v Southfield Bd of Ed, 310 Mich App 660, 668 ; 874 NW2d 150 (2015). | 3 | 2016–2025 |
Zaher v. Miotke
green
2 sentences2023Zaher v Miotke, 300 Mich App 132, 139 ; 832 NW2d 266 (2013). “[M]otions under MCR 2.116(C)(8) test the legal sufficiency of a claim based on the factual allegations in the complaint. 2023Zaher v Miotke, 300 Mich App 132, 139 ; 832 NW2d 266 (2013). “[M]otions under MCR 2.116(C)(8) test the legal sufficiency of a claim based on the factual allegations in the complaint. | 3 | 2018–2023 |
Averill v. DAUTERMAN
neutral
2 sentences2019Motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) test “the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone.” Lawrence v Burdi, 314 Mich App 203, 211 ; 886 NW2d 748 (2016), quoting Averill v Dauterman, 284 Mich App 18, 21 ; 772 NW2d 797 (2009). 2019Motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) test “the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone.” Lawrence v Burdi, 314 Mich App 203, 211 ; 886 NW2d 748 (2016), quoting Averill v Dauterman, 284 Mich App 18, 21 ; 772 NW2d 797 (2009). | 3 | 2017–2019 |
Markis v. City of Grosse Pointe Park
green
2 sentences2018Markis v Grosse Pointe Park, 180 Mich App 545, 551 ; 448 NW2d 352 (1989). 2018Markis v Grosse Pointe Park, 180 Mich App 545, 551 ; 448 NW2d 352 (1989). | 3 | 1990–2018 |
Haynes v Neshewat
green
2 sentences2016Haynes v Neshewat, 477 Mich 29, 34 ; 729 NW2d 488 (2007). “ ‘A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim on the pleadings alone to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief may be granted. 2016Haynes v Neshewat, 477 Mich 29, 34 ; 729 NW2d 488 (2007). “ ‘A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim on the pleadings alone to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief may be granted. | 3 | 2016–2017 |
| In re Casey Estate green | 3 | 2016–2016 |
| Pawlak v. Redox Corp. green | 3 | 1990–1992 |
| Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. green | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| Bonner v. City of Brighton green | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| Pontiac Police & Fire Retiree Prefunded Group Health & Insurance Trust Board of Trustees v. City of Pontiac No 2 green | 2 | 2021–2022 |
| Liggett Restaurant Group, Inc. v. City of Pontiac green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| Liggett Restaurant Group, Inc. v. City of Pontiac green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| McNees v. Cedar Springs Stamping Co. green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| King v. Michigan State Police Department green | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| McNeil v. Charlevoix County green | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| Johnson v. Pastoriza green | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co. green | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| ETT Ambulance Service Corp. v. Rockford Ambulance, Inc. green | 2 | 2016–2016 |
| Koontz v. Ameritech Services, Inc green | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| Kuhn v. Secretary of State green | 2 | 2000–2014 |
| BC Tile & Marble Co. v. Multi Building Co. green | 2 | 2012–2013 |
| Alan Custom Homes, Inc v. Krol green | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| Marcelletti v. Bathani green | 2 | 1994–1996 |
| Michigan Insurance Repair Co. v. Manufacturers National Bank neutral | 2 | 1993–1993 |
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.