Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant, emailed to you with a link to the setup page and always available from the account icon.
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 1988–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Graves v. Warner Bros.green2 sentences2006For example, in Graves v Warner Bros, 469 Mich 853, 854 (2003), when I denied Mr. Fieger’s motion requesting my recusal, my statement explained that the motion did not assert any grounds for my recusal in that case: Plaintiffs motion for recusal is based on the same grounds alleged in the April 16,2003 motion filed in Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler, Docket No. 122457 to recuse the same justices. 2006For example, in Graves v. Warner Bros., 469 Mich. 853, 854 , 666 N.W.2d 665 (2003), when I denied Mr. Fieger's motion requesting my recusal, my statement explained that the motion did not assert any grounds for my recusal in that case: Plaintiff's motion for recusal is based on the same grounds alleged in the April 16, 2003 motion filed in Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler, Docket No. 122457 to recuse the same justices. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Grievance Administrator v. Fieger
green
2 sentences2007In light of my understanding of the requirements of Const. 1963, art. 6, § 6, I also provided an explanation in writing of my decision not to participate and asked that the Court open an administrative file to explore the rules that should govern justice disqualification decisions.[3][ Fieger, supra at 1240 , ___ N.W.2d ___.]" Thus, any assertion that my position on justice recusals is new, or began with attorney Fieger's motion to disqualify "the majority of four" (then Chief Justice Corrigan and Justices Taylor, Young, and Markman) is incorrect. 2007In light of my understanding of the requirements of Const. 1963, art. 6, § 6, I also provided an explanation in writing of my decision not to participate and asked that the Court open an administrative file to explore the rules that should govern justice disqualification decisions.[3] [ Fieger, supra at 1240 , ___ N.W.2d ___.]" Thus, any assertion that my position on justice recusals is new, or began with attorney Fieger's motion to disqualify "the majority of four" (then Chief Justice Corrigan and Justices Taylor, Young, and Markman) is incorrect. | 3 | 2007–2007 |
Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
green
2 sentences2007It is important to note that attorney Fieger initially moved to disqualify me, as well as "the majority of four." Then, when I denied the motion with written reasons for my decision not to recuse myself, attorney Fieger made no further disqualification motions against me, although attorney Fieger has continued to make disqualification motions against "the majority of four." See Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 469 Mich. 883, 889 , 669 N.W.2d 265 (2003) (Weaver, J., participating in part and voting to grant reconsideration in part). 2007It is important to note that attorney Fieger initially moved to disqualify me, as well as "the majority of four." Then, when I denied the motion with written reasons for my decision not to recuse myself, attorney Fieger made no further disqualification motions against me, although attorney Fieger has continued to make disqualification motions against "the majority of four." See Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 469 Mich. 883, 889 , 669 N.W.2d 265 (2003) (Weaver, J., participating in part and voting to grant reconsideration in part). | 3 | 2007–2007 |
Northern Ins. Co. of NY v. Chatham County
green
2 sentences2019“States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law.” Northern Ins Co of New York v Chatham Co, GA, 547 US 189, 193 ; 126 S Ct 1689 ; 164 L Ed 2d 367 (2006). 2019“States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law.” Northern Ins Co of New York v Chatham Co, GA, 547 US 189, 193 ; 126 S Ct 1689 ; 164 L Ed 2d 367 (2006). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Shavers v. Attorney General
green
1 sentence1988Further, because of the liberal policy underlying the declaratory judgment rule, to make the courts more accessible to the people, Shavers, supra, p 588 , it allegedly behooves this Court to find that plaintiff has standing. | 1 | 1988–1988 |