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 2017–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Henson v. Veterans Cab Co.green2 sentences2018See Henson v Veteran’s Cab Co of Flint, 384 Mich 486, 493-494 ; 185 NW2d 383 (1971) (construing the predecessor court rule to MCR 2.613(A)). 2018See Henson v Veteran’s Cab Co of Flint, 384 Mich 486, 493-494 ; 185 NW2d 383 (1971) (construing the predecessor court rule to MCR 2.613(A)). | 2 | 2 |
Lark v. the Detroit Edison Co.green2 sentences2017See Lark, 99 Mich App at 284 (recognizing in the context of the predecessor court rule that when determining whether MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f) is applicable, each case “must be examined on its facts[.]”).4 2 Relief from judgment was also not warranted pursuant to MCR 2.612(C)(1)(c) or (d) where the record does not contain evidence of fraud or misconduct on the part of plaintiff, and where the clerical error in the default judgment did not render it void. 2017See Lark, 99 Mich App at 284 (recognizing in the context of the predecessor court rule that when determining whether MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f) is applicable, each case “must be examined on its facts[.]”).4 2 Relief from judgment was also not warranted pursuant to MCR 2.612(C)(1)(c) or (d) where the record does not contain evidence of fraud or misconduct on the part of plaintiff, and where the clerical error in the default judgment did not render it void. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Feld v. Robert & Charles Beauty Salon
green
2 sentences2020Although not discussing MCR 2.311(A), our Supreme Court employed reasoning similar to that of Nemes and arrived at a similar conclusion in construing § 385 of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.385, in Feld v Robert & Charles Beauty Salon, 435 Mich 352, 368 ; 459 NW2d 279 (1990) (Opinion by RILEY, C.J.). 2020Although not discussing MCR 2.311(A), our Supreme Court employed reasoning similar to that of Nemes and arrived at a similar conclusion in construing § 385 of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.385, in Feld v Robert & Charles Beauty Salon, 435 Mich 352, 368 ; 459 NW2d 279 (1990) (Opinion by RILEY, C.J.). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Wilson v. Romeos
green
1 sentence2017Construing the predecessor court rule to MCR 2.613(B) (i.e., GCR 1963, 529.2), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the successor judge “had no jurisdiction to set aside the order” of the first judge, and the case was remanded back to the first judge to “make a final disposition of the cause[.]” Id. at 678-679 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |