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 2 courts 1961–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sussel v. City & County of Honolulu Civil Service Commissiongreen1 sentence2010She has cited with approval Canon 2 of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that ‘[a] judge shall avoid . . . the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities’ and Model Canon 18 See, e.g, Tracey v Tracey, 97 Conn App 278, 281 (2006) (“‘The [party] has met its burden [of showing that a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned] if it can prove that the conduct in question gave rise to a reasonable appearance of impropriety.’”) (citations omitted; second alteration added); Sussel v Honolulu City & Co Civil Service Comm, 71 Hawaii 101, 103 (1989) (“‘[A]n a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tracy C Brickey v. Vincent Lavon McCarver
green
2 sentences2023We have stated the disqualification rule in MCL 500.3135(2)(c) as follows: “individuals injured while operating a motor vehicle that is both owned by them and uninsured in violation of MCL 500.3101 are not entitled to recover damages.” Brickley v McCarver, 323 Mich App 639, 648 ; 919 NW2d 412 (2018). 2023We have stated the disqualification rule in MCL 500.3135(2)(c) as follows: “individuals injured while operating a motor vehicle that is both owned by them and uninsured in violation of MCL 500.3101 are not entitled to recover damages.” Brickley v McCarver, 323 Mich App 639, 648 ; 919 NW2d 412 (2018). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2010If the majority’s genuine intent is to bring Michigan in line with other states’ standards, it should adopt the common standard—requiring recusal when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned—as a threshold standard at 36 Chief Justice Kelly and Justice Hathaway incorrectly imply that the United States Supreme Court observed in Caperton v A T Massey Coal Co, Inc, 556 US ___ ; 129 S Ct 2252 (2009), that the vast majority of states have adopted the “appearance of impropriety” as a disqualification standard. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Hardaway
neutral
1 sentence2010NOTES [1] See 485 Mich. civ , cxxxii (2009) (YOUNG, J., dissenting); Pellegrino v. Ampco Systems Parking, 485 Mich. 1134 , ___ N.W.2d ___ (2010) (YOUNG, J., not participating). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Flynn v. McLouth Steel Corp.
green
1 sentence1977People v Dudley, 393 Mich 762 ; 223 NW2d 297 (1974). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Chrysler Corp. v. Smith
green
1 sentence1967But such an interpretation would disregard the legislative purposes underlying the disqualification clause.” We cannot accept this as authority, however, for in Michigan we follow the rule of statutory construction that requires a “liberal” construction to afford coverage and a “strict” construction to effect disqualification. 4 See Linski v. Employment Security Commission (1959), 358 Mich 239 , and the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice McAllister, in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Smith (1941), 297 Mich 438 at 475: “The purpose of the legislation is to pay unemployment compensation benefits an | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Linski v. Employment Security Commission
green
1 sentence1967But such an interpretation would disregard the legislative purposes underlying the disqualification clause.” We cannot accept this as authority, however, for in Michigan we follow the rule of statutory construction that requires a “liberal” construction to afford coverage and a “strict” construction to effect disqualification. 4 See Linski v. Employment Security Commission (1959), 358 Mich 239 , and the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice McAllister, in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Smith (1941), 297 Mich 438 at 475: “The purpose of the legislation is to pay unemployment compensation benefits an | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Brainard v. Unemployment Compensation Commission
green
2 sentences1961Brainard v. Unemployment Compensation Commission of Delaware, 45 Del 528 ( 76 A2d 126 ). 1961Brainard v. Unemployment Compensation Commission of Delaware, 45 Del 528 ( 76 A2d 126 ). | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.