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 1970–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Glancy v. City of Rosevillegreen2 sentences2010TWO-INCH RULE As with governmental immunity itself, the two-inch rule was originally a common-law rule. 6 In Harris v Detroit, 367 Mich 526, 528 ; 117 NW2d 32 (1962), the two-inch rule was described as meaning that “a depression in a walk which does not exceed 2 inches in depth will not render a municipality liable for damages incident to an accident caused by such depression.” “The basis of the two-inch rule [was] the concept of ‘reasonable repair.’ ” Glancy, 457 Mich at 586 . 2010“The two-inch rule was a bright-line rule stating that defects of two inches or less constituted ‘reasonable repair’ as a matter of law.” Id. at 586-587 . | 1 | 3 |
Rule v. City of Bay Citygreen2 sentences2010See Glancy, 457 Mich at 588 , which explained that “the two-inch rule was ... a common-law threshold for negligence based on the ‘reasonable repair’ standard of care of the statutory highway exception.” See also Rule v Bay City, 387 Mich 281, 282 ; 195 NW2d 849 (1972), in which this Court held that “for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Adams in his dissent in Harris v Detroit, 367 Mich 526, 529 (1962), we do not regard it as desirable to continue to enforce the ‘two-inch’ rule,’ ” and Justice Adam’s dissent in Harris , in which he referred to the two-inch rule as a “judge-made rule of law,” a 2010See Glancy, 457 Mich at 588 , which explained that “the two-inch rule was ... a common-law threshold for negligence based on the ‘reasonable repair’ standard of care of the statutory highway exception.” See also Rule v Bay City, 387 Mich 281, 282 ; 195 NW2d 849 (1972), in which this Court held that “for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Adams in his dissent in Harris v Detroit, 367 Mich 526, 529 (1962), we do not regard it as desirable to continue to enforce the ‘two-inch’ rule,’ ” and Justice Adam’s dissent in Harris , in which he referred to the two-inch rule as a “judge-made rule of law,” a | 1 | 3 |
Harris v. City of Detroitgreen2 sentences2010TWO-INCH RULE As with governmental immunity itself, the two-inch rule was originally a common-law rule. 6 In Harris v Detroit, 367 Mich 526, 528 ; 117 NW2d 32 (1962), the two-inch rule was described as meaning that “a depression in a walk which does not exceed 2 inches in depth will not render a municipality liable for damages incident to an accident caused by such depression.” “The basis of the two-inch rule [was] the concept of ‘reasonable repair.’ ” Glancy, 457 Mich at 586 . 2010TWO-INCH RULE As with governmental immunity itself, the two-inch rule was originally a common-law rule. 6 In Harris v Detroit, 367 Mich 526, 528 ; 117 NW2d 32 (1962), the two-inch rule was described as meaning that “a depression in a walk which does not exceed 2 inches in depth will not render a municipality liable for damages incident to an accident caused by such depression.” “The basis of the two-inch rule [was] the concept of ‘reasonable repair.’ ” Glancy, 457 Mich at 586 . | 1 | 2 |
Bricker v. Greengreen2 sentences2010See Glancy, 457 Mich at 588 , which explained that “the two-inch rule was ... a common-law threshold for negligence based on the ‘reasonable repair’ standard of care of the statutory highway exception.” See also Rule v Bay City, 387 Mich 281, 282 ; 195 NW2d 849 (1972), in which this Court held that “for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Adams in his dissent in Harris v Detroit, 367 Mich 526, 529 (1962), we do not regard it as desirable to continue to enforce the ‘two-inch’ rule,’ ” and Justice Adam’s dissent in Harris , in which he referred to the two-inch rule as a “judge-made rule of law,” a 2010See Glancy, 457 Mich at 588 , which explained that “the two-inch rule was ... a common-law threshold for negligence based on the ‘reasonable repair’ standard of care of the statutory highway exception.” See also Rule v Bay City, 387 Mich 281, 282 ; 195 NW2d 849 (1972), in which this Court held that “for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Adams in his dissent in Harris v Detroit, 367 Mich 526, 529 (1962), we do not regard it as desirable to continue to enforce the ‘two-inch’ rule,’ ” and Justice Adam’s dissent in Harris , in which he referred to the two-inch rule as a “judge-made rule of law,” a | 1 | 1 |
National Pride at Work, Inc v. Governorgreen2 sentences2010Nat’l Pride at Work, Inc v Governor, 481 Mich 56, 70 ; 748 NW2d 524 (2008) (“[A]n interpretation that renders language meaningless must be avoided.”). 2010Nat’l Pride at Work, Inc v Governor, 481 Mich 56, 70 ; 748 NW2d 524 (2008) (“[A]n interpretation that renders language meaningless must be avoided.”). | 1 | 1 |
Weisse v. City of Detroitgreen2 sentences1998See Weisse v Detroit, 105 Mich 482, 483, 487 ; 63 NW 423 (1895); Harris v Detroit, 367 Mich 526, 528 ; 117 NW2d 32 (1962). 1998See Weisse v Detroit, 105 Mich 482, 483, 487 ; 63 NW 423 (1895); Harris v Detroit, 367 Mich 526, 528 ; 117 NW2d 32 (1962). | 1 | 1 |
Crowe v. Michigan Central Railroadgreen2 sentences1998See Crowe v Michigan Central R Co, 142 Mich 692 ; 106 NW 395 (1906); Sherman v Consumers Power Co, 199 Mich 543 ; 165 NW 844 (1917). 1998See Crowe v Michigan Central R Co, 142 Mich 692 ; 106 NW 395 (1906); Sherman v Consumers Power Co, 199 Mich 543 ; 165 NW 844 (1917). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tellin v. Forsyth Township
green
2 sentences2015In reviewing a (C)(7) motion, a court must accept all well-pleaded allegations as true and construe them in favor of the nonmoving party.” Tellin v Forsyth Twp, 291 Mich App 692, 698 ; 806 NW2d 359 (2011) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 2015In reviewing a (C)(7) motion, a court must accept all well-pleaded allegations as true and construe them in favor of the nonmoving party.” Tellin v Forsyth Twp, 291 Mich App 692, 698 ; 806 NW2d 359 (2011) (citations and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Wilson v. Alpena County Road Commission
green
1 sentence2015With regard to Wilson, 474 Mich 161 , and Ellerbee v City of Detroit, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 13, 2013 (Docket No. 308952), cited by defendant in its motion, plaintiffs argued that both addressed whether a defendant had notice of a defect 30 days before an accident and did not negate plaintiffs’ “evidence of defect.” Additionally, plaintiffs asserted that the deposition testimony of Uncapher met the notice requirements of the highway exception to governmental immunity.4 At a hearing on defendant’s motion, the trial court stated: Listen, I’ve looked a | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Robinson v. City of Lansing
green
2 sentences2014Robinson v City of Lansing, 486 Mich 1, 13 ; 782 NW2d 171 (2010). -2- stumbling. 2014Robinson v City of Lansing, 486 Mich 1, 13 ; 782 NW2d 171 (2010). -2- stumbling. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. McGraw
green
2 sentences2010In other words, MCL 691.1402a(l) is mere surplusage unless “county highway” in that subsection is construed to limit the application of the two-inch rule in MCL 691.1402a(2), and it is well established that “[i]n interpreting a statute, we [must] avoid a construction that would render part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.” People v McGraw, 484 Mich 120, 126 ; 771 NW2d 655 (2009). 2010In other words, MCL 691.1402a(l) is mere surplusage unless “county highway” in that subsection is construed to limit the application of the two-inch rule in MCL 691.1402a(2), and it is well established that “[i]n interpreting a statute, we [must] avoid a construction that would render part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.” People v McGraw, 484 Mich 120, 126 ; 771 NW2d 655 (2009). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Ostroth v. Warren Regency, GP, LLC
green
2 sentences2010Ostroth v. Warren Regency, GP, LLC, 474 Mich. 36, 40 , 709 N.W.2d 589 (2006). 2010Ostroth v Warren Regency, GP, LLC, 474 Mich 36, 40 ; 709 NW2d (2006). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
O'Donnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences1998The Legislature, with its ability to consider testimony from a variety of sources and make compromise decisions, is much better positioned than the judiciary to consider such policy arguments and make policy choices. 6 “The responsibility for drawing lines in a society as complex as ours — of identifying priorities, weighing the relevant considerations and choosing between competing alternatives — is the Legislature’s, not the judiciary’s.” O’Donnell v State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co, 404 Mich 524, 542 ; 273 NW2d 829 (1979). 1998The Legislature, with its ability to consider testimony from a variety of sources and make compromise decisions, is much better positioned than the judiciary to consider such policy arguments and make policy choices. 6 “The responsibility for drawing lines in a society as complex as ours — of identifying priorities, weighing the relevant considerations and choosing between competing alternatives — is the Legislature’s, not the judiciary’s.” O’Donnell v State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co, 404 Mich 524, 542 ; 273 NW2d 829 (1979). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
ABC Supply Co. v. City of River Rouge
green
1 sentence1998In Glancy, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that subsection 7(1) only preserved pre1965 immunity for the state, not other governmental entities, i.e., municipalities. 216 Mich App 390 ; 549 NW2d 78 (1996). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Glancy v. City of Roseville
neutral
1 sentence1998In Glancy, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that subsection 7(1) only preserved pre1965 immunity for the state, not other governmental entities, i.e., municipalities. 216 Mich App 390 ; 549 NW2d 78 (1996). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Sherman v. Consumers' Power Co.
green
2 sentences1998See Crowe v Michigan Central R Co, 142 Mich 692 ; 106 NW 395 (1906); Sherman v Consumers Power Co, 199 Mich 543 ; 165 NW 844 (1917). 1998See Crowe v Michigan Central R Co, 142 Mich 692 ; 106 NW 395 (1906); Sherman v Consumers Power Co, 199 Mich 543 ; 165 NW 844 (1917). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Biby v. City of Wichita
green
1 sentence1970We add that we do not intend to intimate an opinion as to whether the two-inch rule applies in a ease where, as here, the deviation is in the surface of a bridge which is used as a walkway. 2 See Northrup v. City of Pontiac, supra. See, also, Baker v. City of Detroit (1911), 166 Mich 597 (water shutoff box); Biby v. City of Wichita (1940), 151 Kan 981 ( 101 P2d 919 ), (steel plate which was part of a drain gutter); Harrison v. City of Pittsburgh (1945), 353 Pa 22 ( 44 A2d 273 ) (manhole cover); Padley, et al v. Village of Lodi (1940), 233 Wis 661 ( 290 NW 136 ), (water main shutoff box); Bleim | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Bleiman v. City of Chicago
neutral
1 sentence1970We add that we do not intend to intimate an opinion as to whether the two-inch rule applies in a ease where, as here, the deviation is in the surface of a bridge which is used as a walkway. 2 See Northrup v. City of Pontiac, supra. See, also, Baker v. City of Detroit (1911), 166 Mich 597 (water shutoff box); Biby v. City of Wichita (1940), 151 Kan 981 ( 101 P2d 919 ), (steel plate which was part of a drain gutter); Harrison v. City of Pittsburgh (1945), 353 Pa 22 ( 44 A2d 273 ) (manhole cover); Padley, et al v. Village of Lodi (1940), 233 Wis 661 ( 290 NW 136 ), (water main shutoff box); Bleim | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Padley v. Village of Lodi
green
1 sentence1970We add that we do not intend to intimate an opinion as to whether the two-inch rule applies in a ease where, as here, the deviation is in the surface of a bridge which is used as a walkway. 2 See Northrup v. City of Pontiac, supra. See, also, Baker v. City of Detroit (1911), 166 Mich 597 (water shutoff box); Biby v. City of Wichita (1940), 151 Kan 981 ( 101 P2d 919 ), (steel plate which was part of a drain gutter); Harrison v. City of Pittsburgh (1945), 353 Pa 22 ( 44 A2d 273 ) (manhole cover); Padley, et al v. Village of Lodi (1940), 233 Wis 661 ( 290 NW 136 ), (water main shutoff box); Bleim | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Northrup v. City of Pontiac
neutral
1 sentence1970We add that we do not intend to intimate an opinion as to whether the two-inch rule applies in a ease where, as here, the deviation is in the surface of a bridge which is used as a walkway. 2 See Northrup v. City of Pontiac, supra. See, also, Baker v. City of Detroit (1911), 166 Mich 597 (water shutoff box); Biby v. City of Wichita (1940), 151 Kan 981 ( 101 P2d 919 ), (steel plate which was part of a drain gutter); Harrison v. City of Pittsburgh (1945), 353 Pa 22 ( 44 A2d 273 ) (manhole cover); Padley, et al v. Village of Lodi (1940), 233 Wis 661 ( 290 NW 136 ), (water main shutoff box); Bleim | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Baker v. City of Detroit
green
1 sentence1970We add that we do not intend to intimate an opinion as to whether the two-inch rule applies in a ease where, as here, the deviation is in the surface of a bridge which is used as a walkway. 2 See Northrup v. City of Pontiac, supra. See, also, Baker v. City of Detroit (1911), 166 Mich 597 (water shutoff box); Biby v. City of Wichita (1940), 151 Kan 981 ( 101 P2d 919 ), (steel plate which was part of a drain gutter); Harrison v. City of Pittsburgh (1945), 353 Pa 22 ( 44 A2d 273 ) (manhole cover); Padley, et al v. Village of Lodi (1940), 233 Wis 661 ( 290 NW 136 ), (water main shutoff box); Bleim | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Cornell v. City of Ypsilanti
green
1 sentence1970Cf. Cornell v. City of Ypsilanti (1920), 212 Mich 540, 547 . 4 The Howards were entitled during their case in chief to present the entire story regarding Donald Howard’s back condition, the unfavorable as well as the favorable, lest the city on cross-examination or rebuttal undermine the veracity of Howard’s presentation. 5 In the quoted ease the trial judge charged the jury that it might allow damages only for future consequences “which it is reasonably certain he will suffer in the future that is the natural and proximate result of the injury.” The jury was similarly instructed in the presen | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Harrison Et Vir. v. Pennsylvania
green
1 sentence1970We add that we do not intend to intimate an opinion as to whether the two-inch rule applies in a ease where, as here, the deviation is in the surface of a bridge which is used as a walkway. 2 See Northrup v. City of Pontiac, supra. See, also, Baker v. City of Detroit (1911), 166 Mich 597 (water shutoff box); Biby v. City of Wichita (1940), 151 Kan 981 ( 101 P2d 919 ), (steel plate which was part of a drain gutter); Harrison v. City of Pittsburgh (1945), 353 Pa 22 ( 44 A2d 273 ) (manhole cover); Padley, et al v. Village of Lodi (1940), 233 Wis 661 ( 290 NW 136 ), (water main shutoff box); Bleim | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.