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.
6 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1970–1984 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 |
|---|---|---|
Glasner v. Griffingreen2 sentences1982Borovoy, supra. In Glasner v Griffin, 102 Mich App 445, 448 ; 301 NW2d 889 (1980), this Court explained the good cause requirement of GCR 1963, 520.4 as follows: " 'Good cause’ sufficient to set aside an entry of default under the above cited court rule includes such matters as '(1) a substantial defect or irregularity in proceedings upon which the default was based, (2) a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with the requirements which created the default, or (3) some other reason showing that manifest injustice would result from permitting the default to stand.’ ” (Citations omitted.) App 1982Borovoy, supra. In Glasner v Griffin, 102 Mich App 445, 448 ; 301 NW2d 889 (1980), this Court explained the good cause requirement of GCR 1963, 520.4 as follows: " 'Good cause’ sufficient to set aside an entry of default under the above cited court rule includes such matters as '(1) a substantial defect or irregularity in proceedings upon which the default was based, (2) a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with the requirements which created the default, or (3) some other reason showing that manifest injustice would result from permitting the default to stand.’ ” (Citations omitted.) App | 1 | 2 |
People v. Stewartgreen2 sentences1980This exception to the hearsay rule was applied to cases in which no conspiracy had been charged, before the enactment of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, People v Stewart, 46 Mich App 282, 285 ; 207 NW2d 907 (1973), aff'd 397 Mich 1 ; 242 NW2d 760 (1976) , modified 400 Mich 540 ; 256 NW2d 31 (1977) , People v Shepherd, 63 Mich App 316, 322 ; 234 NW2d 502 (1975), People v Adams, 48 Mich App 595, 599 ; 210 NW2d 888 (1973), and People v Woodfork, 47 Mich App 631, 633 ; 209 NW2d 829 (1973). 1980This exception to the hearsay rule was applied to cases in which no conspiracy had been charged, before the enactment of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, People v Stewart, 46 Mich App 282, 285 ; 207 NW2d 907 (1973), aff'd 397 Mich 1 ; 242 NW2d 760 (1976) , modified 400 Mich 540 ; 256 NW2d 31 (1977) , People v Shepherd, 63 Mich App 316, 322 ; 234 NW2d 502 (1975), People v Adams, 48 Mich App 595, 599 ; 210 NW2d 888 (1973), and People v Woodfork, 47 Mich App 631, 633 ; 209 NW2d 829 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harrison v. VMC Building Corp.
neutral
2 sentences1982Harrison v VMC Building Corp, 71 Mich App 458, 460 ; 248 NW2d 584 (1976) (quoting 2 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated [2d ed], Comments, p 662).” Defendant’s explanation for BCBSM’s counsel’s failure to comply with the requirement which created the default is that "the press of the circumstances” caused him to fail to file a timely answer to plaintiff’s complaint. 1982Harrison v VMC Building Corp, 71 Mich App 458, 460 ; 248 NW2d 584 (1976) (quoting 2 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated [2d ed], Comments, p 662).” Defendant’s explanation for BCBSM’s counsel’s failure to comply with the requirement which created the default is that "the press of the circumstances” caused him to fail to file a timely answer to plaintiff’s complaint. | 2 | 1980–1982 |
Midwest Mental Health Clinic, PC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield
green
2 sentences1984Under GCR 1963, 520.4: "A proceeding to set aside default or a default judgment, except when grounded on want of jurisdiction over the defendant, shall be granted only if good cause is shown and an affidavit of facts showing a meritorious defense is filed.” (Emphasis added.) In Midwest Mental Health Clinic, PC v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 119 Mich App 671 ; 326 NW2d 599 (1982), this Court described "good cause”: " 'Good cause’ sufficient to set aside an entry of default under the above cited court rule includes such matters as '(1) a substantial defect or irregularity in proceedings 1984Under GCR 1963, 520.4: "A proceeding to set aside default or a default judgment, except when grounded on want of jurisdiction over the defendant, shall be granted only if good cause is shown and an affidavit of facts showing a meritorious defense is filed.” (Emphasis added.) In Midwest Mental Health Clinic, PC v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 119 Mich App 671 ; 326 NW2d 599 (1982), this Court described "good cause”: " 'Good cause’ sufficient to set aside an entry of default under the above cited court rule includes such matters as '(1) a substantial defect or irregularity in proceedings | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Borovoy v. Bursar Realty Corp.
green
1 sentence1982Borovoy, supra. In Glasner v Griffin, 102 Mich App 445, 448 ; 301 NW2d 889 (1980), this Court explained the good cause requirement of GCR 1963, 520.4 as follows: " 'Good cause’ sufficient to set aside an entry of default under the above cited court rule includes such matters as '(1) a substantial defect or irregularity in proceedings upon which the default was based, (2) a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with the requirements which created the default, or (3) some other reason showing that manifest injustice would result from permitting the default to stand.’ ” (Citations omitted.) App | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Stewart
green
2 sentences1980This exception to the hearsay rule was applied to cases in which no conspiracy had been charged, before the enactment of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, People v Stewart, 46 Mich App 282, 285 ; 207 NW2d 907 (1973), aff'd 397 Mich 1 ; 242 NW2d 760 (1976) , modified 400 Mich 540 ; 256 NW2d 31 (1977) , People v Shepherd, 63 Mich App 316, 322 ; 234 NW2d 502 (1975), People v Adams, 48 Mich App 595, 599 ; 210 NW2d 888 (1973), and People v Woodfork, 47 Mich App 631, 633 ; 209 NW2d 829 (1973). 1980This exception to the hearsay rule was applied to cases in which no conspiracy had been charged, before the enactment of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, People v Stewart, 46 Mich App 282, 285 ; 207 NW2d 907 (1973), aff'd 397 Mich 1 ; 242 NW2d 760 (1976) , modified 400 Mich 540 ; 256 NW2d 31 (1977) , People v Shepherd, 63 Mich App 316, 322 ; 234 NW2d 502 (1975), People v Adams, 48 Mich App 595, 599 ; 210 NW2d 888 (1973), and People v Woodfork, 47 Mich App 631, 633 ; 209 NW2d 829 (1973). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Adams
green
2 sentences1980This exception to the hearsay rule was applied to cases in which no conspiracy had been charged, before the enactment of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, People v Stewart, 46 Mich App 282, 285 ; 207 NW2d 907 (1973), aff'd 397 Mich 1 ; 242 NW2d 760 (1976) , modified 400 Mich 540 ; 256 NW2d 31 (1977) , People v Shepherd, 63 Mich App 316, 322 ; 234 NW2d 502 (1975), People v Adams, 48 Mich App 595, 599 ; 210 NW2d 888 (1973), and People v Woodfork, 47 Mich App 631, 633 ; 209 NW2d 829 (1973). 1980This exception to the hearsay rule was applied to cases in which no conspiracy had been charged, before the enactment of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, People v Stewart, 46 Mich App 282, 285 ; 207 NW2d 907 (1973), aff'd 397 Mich 1 ; 242 NW2d 760 (1976) , modified 400 Mich 540 ; 256 NW2d 31 (1977) , People v Shepherd, 63 Mich App 316, 322 ; 234 NW2d 502 (1975), People v Adams, 48 Mich App 595, 599 ; 210 NW2d 888 (1973), and People v Woodfork, 47 Mich App 631, 633 ; 209 NW2d 829 (1973). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Shepherd
green
2 sentences1980This exception to the hearsay rule was applied to cases in which no conspiracy had been charged, before the enactment of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, People v Stewart, 46 Mich App 282, 285 ; 207 NW2d 907 (1973), aff'd 397 Mich 1 ; 242 NW2d 760 (1976) , modified 400 Mich 540 ; 256 NW2d 31 (1977) , People v Shepherd, 63 Mich App 316, 322 ; 234 NW2d 502 (1975), People v Adams, 48 Mich App 595, 599 ; 210 NW2d 888 (1973), and People v Woodfork, 47 Mich App 631, 633 ; 209 NW2d 829 (1973). 1980This exception to the hearsay rule was applied to cases in which no conspiracy had been charged, before the enactment of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, People v Stewart, 46 Mich App 282, 285 ; 207 NW2d 907 (1973), aff'd 397 Mich 1 ; 242 NW2d 760 (1976) , modified 400 Mich 540 ; 256 NW2d 31 (1977) , People v Shepherd, 63 Mich App 316, 322 ; 234 NW2d 502 (1975), People v Adams, 48 Mich App 595, 599 ; 210 NW2d 888 (1973), and People v Woodfork, 47 Mich App 631, 633 ; 209 NW2d 829 (1973). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Woodfork
green
2 sentences1980This exception to the hearsay rule was applied to cases in which no conspiracy had been charged, before the enactment of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, People v Stewart, 46 Mich App 282, 285 ; 207 NW2d 907 (1973), aff'd 397 Mich 1 ; 242 NW2d 760 (1976) , modified 400 Mich 540 ; 256 NW2d 31 (1977) , People v Shepherd, 63 Mich App 316, 322 ; 234 NW2d 502 (1975), People v Adams, 48 Mich App 595, 599 ; 210 NW2d 888 (1973), and People v Woodfork, 47 Mich App 631, 633 ; 209 NW2d 829 (1973). 1980This exception to the hearsay rule was applied to cases in which no conspiracy had been charged, before the enactment of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, People v Stewart, 46 Mich App 282, 285 ; 207 NW2d 907 (1973), aff'd 397 Mich 1 ; 242 NW2d 760 (1976) , modified 400 Mich 540 ; 256 NW2d 31 (1977) , People v Shepherd, 63 Mich App 316, 322 ; 234 NW2d 502 (1975), People v Adams, 48 Mich App 595, 599 ; 210 NW2d 888 (1973), and People v Woodfork, 47 Mich App 631, 633 ; 209 NW2d 829 (1973). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Stewart
green
2 sentences1980This exception to the hearsay rule was applied to cases in which no conspiracy had been charged, before the enactment of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, People v Stewart, 46 Mich App 282, 285 ; 207 NW2d 907 (1973), aff'd 397 Mich 1 ; 242 NW2d 760 (1976) , modified 400 Mich 540 ; 256 NW2d 31 (1977) , People v Shepherd, 63 Mich App 316, 322 ; 234 NW2d 502 (1975), People v Adams, 48 Mich App 595, 599 ; 210 NW2d 888 (1973), and People v Woodfork, 47 Mich App 631, 633 ; 209 NW2d 829 (1973). 1980This exception to the hearsay rule was applied to cases in which no conspiracy had been charged, before the enactment of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, People v Stewart, 46 Mich App 282, 285 ; 207 NW2d 907 (1973), aff'd 397 Mich 1 ; 242 NW2d 760 (1976) , modified 400 Mich 540 ; 256 NW2d 31 (1977) , People v Shepherd, 63 Mich App 316, 322 ; 234 NW2d 502 (1975), People v Adams, 48 Mich App 595, 599 ; 210 NW2d 888 (1973), and People v Woodfork, 47 Mich App 631, 633 ; 209 NW2d 829 (1973). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Anderson
green
1 sentence1970The Anderson panel then goes on to hold: “In the absence of a request or proper objection, the trial court was not required to give the limiting instruction.” Anderson, supra, p 250 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |