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 1976–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sparks v. Sparksgreen1 sentence2025See Sparks, 440 Mich at 159-160 (outlining factors to consider when dividing property). | 1 | 1 |
Moll v. Abbott Laboratoriesgreen1 sentence1997See Moll, supra. In order for the jury to determine whether defendant’s product was a substantial factor in producing the decedent’s injury, and therefore a proximate cause of the injury, it must be permitted to consider the number of other factors that contributed to produce the harm. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Poe v. City of Detroit
green
2 sentences1993Factors to be considered in determining whether the negligence is a substantial factor are: (a) the number of other factors which contribute in producing the harm and the extent of the effect which they have in producing it; (b) whether the actor’s conduct has created a force or series of forces which are in continuous and active operation up to the time of the harm, or has created a situation harmless unless acted upon by other forces for which the actor is not responsible; (c) the lapse of time. [Poe v Detroit, 179 Mich App 564, 576-577 ; 446 NW2d 523 (1989), citing 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, 1993Factors to be considered in determining whether the negligence is a substantial factor are: (a) the number of other factors which contribute in producing the harm and the extent of the effect which they have in producing it; (b) whether the actor’s conduct has created a force or series of forces which are in continuous and active operation up to the time of the harm, or has created a situation harmless unless acted upon by other forces for which the actor is not responsible; (c) the lapse of time. [Poe v Detroit, 179 Mich App 564, 576-577 ; 446 NW2d 523 (1989), citing 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, | 2 | 1993–2016 |
Brisboy v. Fibreboard Corp.
green
1 sentence1997Brisboy, supra. One of the considerations in determining whether negligent conduct is a “substantial factor” in producing an injury is “the number of other factors which contribute in producing the harm and the extent of the effect which they have in producing it.” 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 433(a), p 432. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Nielsen v. Henry H. Stevens, Inc.
green
2 sentences1993Nielsen v Henry H Stevens, Inc, 368 Mich 216, 220 ; 118 NW2d 397 (1962). 1993Nielsen v Henry H Stevens, Inc, 368 Mich 216, 220 ; 118 NW2d 397 (1962). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Coy v. Richard’s Industries, Inc
green
1 sentence1989Coy, supra, p 670 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Kaminski v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad
green
2 sentences1976Based upon these facts we conclude that the situation is controlled by Kaminski v Grand Trunk Western R Co, 347 Mich 417, 422 ; 79 NW2d 899 (1956), which quoted with approval a rule set forth in City of Bessemer v Clowdus, 261 Ala 388, 394; 74 So 2d 259 (1954): " * * * There may be 2 or more plausible explanations as to how an event happened or what produced it; yet, if the evidence is without selective application to any 1 of them, they remain conjectures only. 1976Based upon these facts we conclude that the situation is controlled by Kaminski v Grand Trunk Western R Co, 347 Mich 417, 422 ; 79 NW2d 899 (1956), which quoted with approval a rule set forth in City of Bessemer v Clowdus, 261 Ala 388, 394; 74 So 2d 259 (1954): " * * * There may be 2 or more plausible explanations as to how an event happened or what produced it; yet, if the evidence is without selective application to any 1 of them, they remain conjectures only. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.