extremely high standard (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

extremely high standard in Michigan

6 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2018–2022 2 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Travis v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co.green
mich · 1996 · cited in 4 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2018–2022
2 sentences

2022The “certain to occur” requirement is “an extremely high standard,” and requires that “no doubt exist[] with regard to whether it will occur.” Id.

2019Likewise, the requirement that an injury is “certain to occur” has been deemed “an extremely high standard.” Id.

24
Domino v. Texas Department of Criminal Justicegreen
ca5 · 2001 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020See, e.g., Arenas v Calhoun, 922 F3d 616, 620 (CA 5, 2019) (“ ‘Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.’ ”), quoting Domino v Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F3d 752, 756 (CA 5, 2001); Battista v Clarke, 645 F3d 449, 453 (CA 1, 2011) (stating that the deliberate-indifference standard “leave[s] ample room for professional judgment, 19 Plaintiffs allege that defendants switched Flint’s water source despite a 2011 study cautioning against the use of water from the Flint River and warning that the Flint Water Treatment Plant needed upgrades.36 Following that study, there

2020See, e.g., Arenas v Calhoun, 922 F3d 616, 620 (CA 5, 2019) (“ ‘Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.’ ”), quoting Domino v Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F3d 752, 756 (CA 5, 2001); Battista v Clarke, 645 F3d 449, 453 (CA 1, 2011) (stating that the deliberate-indifference standard “leave[s] ample room for professional judgment, 19 Plaintiffs allege that defendants switched Flint’s water source despite a 2011 study cautioning against the use of water from the Flint River and warning that the Flint Water Treatment Plant needed upgrades.36 Following that study, there

22
Battista v. Clarkegreen
ca1 · 2011 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020See, e.g., Arenas v Calhoun, 922 F3d 616, 620 (CA 5, 2019) (“ ‘Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.’ ”), quoting Domino v Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F3d 752, 756 (CA 5, 2001); Battista v Clarke, 645 F3d 449, 453 (CA 1, 2011) (stating that the deliberate-indifference standard “leave[s] ample room for professional judgment, 19 Plaintiffs allege that defendants switched Flint’s water source despite a 2011 study cautioning against the use of water from the Flint River and warning that the Flint Water Treatment Plant needed upgrades.36 Following that study, there

2020See, e.g., Arenas v Calhoun, 922 F3d 616, 620 (CA 5, 2019) (“ ‘Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.’ ”), quoting Domino v Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F3d 752, 756 (CA 5, 2001); Battista v Clarke, 645 F3d 449, 453 (CA 1, 2011) (stating that the deliberate-indifference standard “leave[s] ample room for professional judgment, 19 Plaintiffs allege that defendants switched Flint’s water source despite a 2011 study cautioning against the use of water from the Flint River and warning that the Flint Water Treatment Plant needed upgrades.36 Following that study, there

22
Maria Arenas v. John Calhoungreen
ca5 · 2019 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020See, e.g., Arenas v Calhoun, 922 F3d 616, 620 (CA 5, 2019) (“ ‘Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.’ ”), quoting Domino v Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F3d 752, 756 (CA 5, 2001); Battista v Clarke, 645 F3d 449, 453 (CA 1, 2011) (stating that the deliberate-indifference standard “leave[s] ample room for professional judgment, 19 Plaintiffs allege that defendants switched Flint’s water source despite a 2011 study cautioning against the use of water from the Flint River and warning that the Flint Water Treatment Plant needed upgrades.36 Following that study, there

2020See, e.g., Arenas v Calhoun, 922 F3d 616, 620 (CA 5, 2019) (“ ‘Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.’ ”), quoting Domino v Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F3d 752, 756 (CA 5, 2001); Battista v Clarke, 645 F3d 449, 453 (CA 1, 2011) (stating that the deliberate-indifference standard “leave[s] ample room for professional judgment, 19 Plaintiffs allege that defendants switched Flint’s water source despite a 2011 study cautioning against the use of water from the Flint River and warning that the Flint Water Treatment Plant needed upgrades.36 Following that study, there

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Palazzola v. Karmazin Products Corp. green
michctapp · 1997
2 sentences

2022This certainty element “establishes an extremely high standard of proof that cannot be met by reliance on the laws of probability, the mere prior occurrence of a similar event, or conclusory statements of experts.” Palazzola v Karmazin Prod Corp, 223 Mich App 141, 149-150 ; 565 NW2d 868 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2022This certainty element “establishes an extremely high standard of proof that cannot be met by reliance on the laws of probability, the mere prior occurrence of a similar event, or conclusory statements of experts.” Palazzola v Karmazin Prod Corp, 223 Mich App 141, 149-150 ; 565 NW2d 868 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).

12022–2022

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.131 (4) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.101 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1407 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 45 (2004–2025) TX 15 (2007–2025) GA 9 (1998–2011) MS 7 (2005–2024) MI 6 (2018–2022) IL 5 (1987–2024) CA 3 (1955–2014) WV 3 (1987–2022) FL 3 (1977–2013) NJ 2 (2021–2025) AL 2 (2001–2001) WI 2 (2011–2023) VA 2 (2015–2025) CO 2 (1996–2005) PA 2 (2018–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check