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 1965–1993 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 |
|---|---|---|
Comstock v. Pottergreen2 sentences1975It is applied in those cases where one or more of several parties equally obligated have done more than their share in performing a common obligation. 'And one who has paid more than his share of the joint obligation may recover contribution from his co-contractors.’ Comstock v Potter, 191 Mich 629, 637 [1916].” The general rule of contribution is that one who is compelled to pay or satisfy the whole or to bear more than his aliquot share of the common burden or obligation, upon which several persons are equally liable or which they are bound to discharge, is entitled to contribution against t 1965It is applied in those cases where one or more of several parties equally obligated have done more than their share in performing a common obligation.” See, also, Comstock v. Potter, 191 Mich 629, 637, 638 . | 2 | 2 |
Lorimer v. Julius Knack Coal Co.green2 sentences1985In Caldwell v Fox, 394 Mich 401, 417 ; 231 NW2d 46 (1975), we stated: "The general rule of contribution is that one who is compelled to pay or satisfy the whole or to bear more than his aliquot share of the common burden or obligation, upon which several persons are equally liable or which they are bound to discharge, is entitled to contribution against the others to obtain from them payment of their respective shares.” We have also stated that the doctrine of contribution is founded on principles of equity and natural justice, and that the doctrine rests on the principle that "[w]hen the part 1985In Caldwell v Fox, 394 Mich 401, 417 ; 231 NW2d 46 (1975), we stated: "The general rule of contribution is that one who is compelled to pay or satisfy the whole or to bear more than his aliquot share of the common burden or obligation, upon which several persons are equally liable or which they are bound to discharge, is entitled to contribution against the others to obtain from them payment of their respective shares.” We have also stated that the doctrine of contribution is founded on principles of equity and natural justice, and that the doctrine rests on the principle that "[w]hen the part | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
HASTINGS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. State Farm Insurance Company
green
2 sentences1993It is applied in those cases where one or more of several parties equally obligated have done more than their share in performing a common obligation. `And one who has paid more than his share of the joint obligation may recover contribution from his cocontractors.'" [Citations omitted.] Furthermore, in Hastings Mutual Ins Co v State Farm Ins Co, 177 Mich App 428, 436 ; 442 NW2d 684 (1989), this Court stated: The common law has held that absent a specific statute or policy provision, when several insurers are each liable for a loss, the insurer who pays is entitled to partial recoupment from t 1993It is applied in those cases where one or more of several parties equally obligated have done more than their share in performing a common obligation. `And one who has paid more than his share of the joint obligation may recover contribution from his cocontractors.'" [Citations omitted.] Furthermore, in Hastings Mutual Ins Co v State Farm Ins Co, 177 Mich App 428, 436 ; 442 NW2d 684 (1989), this Court stated: The common law has held that absent a specific statute or policy provision, when several insurers are each liable for a loss, the insurer who pays is entitled to partial recoupment from t | 2 | 1993–1993 |
Caldwell v. Fox
green
2 sentences1985In Caldwell v Fox, 394 Mich 401, 417 ; 231 NW2d 46 (1975), we stated: "The general rule of contribution is that one who is compelled to pay or satisfy the whole or to bear more than his aliquot share of the common burden or obligation, upon which several persons are equally liable or which they are bound to discharge, is entitled to contribution against the others to obtain from them payment of their respective shares.” We have also stated that the doctrine of contribution is founded on principles of equity and natural justice, and that the doctrine rests on the principle that "[w]hen the part 1985In Caldwell v Fox, 394 Mich 401, 417 ; 231 NW2d 46 (1975), we stated: "The general rule of contribution is that one who is compelled to pay or satisfy the whole or to bear more than his aliquot share of the common burden or obligation, upon which several persons are equally liable or which they are bound to discharge, is entitled to contribution against the others to obtain from them payment of their respective shares.” We have also stated that the doctrine of contribution is founded on principles of equity and natural justice, and that the doctrine rests on the principle that "[w]hen the part | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.