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 1915–1986 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerlygreen2 sentences1986In Lenawee Co, supra, pp 26-28, the Supreme Court criticized its prior decisions which distinguished mistakes affecting the essence of consideration 1 from those which go to the quality or the nature of the thing bargained for. 2 Noting that such distinctions do not provide a satisfactory analysis of the nature of the mistake sufficient to invalidate a contract, the Supreme Court held that a case-by-case analysis is the better approach. 1986Lenawee Co, supra, p 29. | 1 | 1 |
Snyder v. City of Alliancegreen2 sentences1937Cas. 1915C, p. 173: “Perhaps the most satisfactory rule that can be formulated, in the light of the authorities, is the most obvious one, that where there is an element of chance in the operation of the slot machine —■. where the one who plays the machine stands to win or lose money, trade checks, or prizes, by a chance,— the machine is a gambling device and obnoxious to statutes directed against gaming or gambling devices.” In Snyder v. City of Alliance, 41 Oh. 1937App. 48, 54 ( 179 N. E. 426 ), the court said: “We believe that it is not essential to gambling that one should have a chance to lose, but that the player has a chance and lure to get something for nothing. | 1 | 1 |
Auditor General v. Fleminggreen2 sentences1915In regard to the certainty and sufficiency of the description required for the validity of a tax deed, the rule is laid down in Cooley on Taxation (2d Ed.), p. 407, as follows: “A more satisfactory rule would seem to be that ‘the designation of the land will be sufficient if it afford means of identification and do not positively mislead the owner/ or be calculated to mislead him” — cited in Auditor General v. Fleming, 142 Mich. 12, 16 ( 105 N. W. 71 ). 1915In regard to the certainty and sufficiency of the description required for the validity of a tax deed, the rule is laid down in Cooley on Taxation (2d Ed.), p. 407, as follows: “A more satisfactory rule would seem to be that ‘the designation of the land will be sufficient if it afford means of identification and do not positively mislead the owner/ or be calculated to mislead him” — cited in Auditor General v. Fleming, 142 Mich. 12, 16 ( 105 N. W. 71 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Auditor General v. Sparrow
neutral
1 sentence1940The above quotation was included with approval in the opinion of this Court in Auditor General v. Sparrow, 116 Mich. 574, 587 . | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Jackson v. Sloman
neutral
1 sentence1938A different rule is applicable to tax deeds than to private deeds as is pointed out in the syllabus from Jackson v. Sloman, 117 Mich. 126 : “A description of lands which would be sufficient in a conveyance between individuals is not necessarily so in proceedings for the levy and collection of taxes.” Our attention is called to the following from the case of Powers v. Corry, 184 Mich. 630 , in support of appellant’s contention that a description in the tax deed which sufficiently identifies the property and does not mislead will be held valid: “In regard to the certainty and sufficiency of the | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Powers v. Corry
neutral
1 sentence1938A different rule is applicable to tax deeds than to private deeds as is pointed out in the syllabus from Jackson v. Sloman, 117 Mich. 126 : “A description of lands which would be sufficient in a conveyance between individuals is not necessarily so in proceedings for the levy and collection of taxes.” Our attention is called to the following from the case of Powers v. Corry, 184 Mich. 630 , in support of appellant’s contention that a description in the tax deed which sufficiently identifies the property and does not mislead will be held valid: “In regard to the certainty and sufficiency of the | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Hoffman v. Roehl
green
2 sentences1933After reviewing the authorities it was said: “We think the more satisfactory rule is to hold that the person permitted by the servant to operate the car in his presence is but an instrument employed by him, and that his acts are, in legal effect, the acts of the servant himself. ’ ’ Hoffman v. Roehl, 61 Mont. 290 ( 203 Pac. 349 , 20 A. L. 1933After reviewing the authorities it was said: “We think the more satisfactory rule is to hold that the person permitted by the servant to operate the car in his presence is but an instrument employed by him, and that his acts are, in legal effect, the acts of the servant himself. ’ ’ Hoffman v. Roehl, 61 Mont. 290 ( 203 Pac. 349 , 20 A. L. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Thixton v. Palmer
green
2 sentences1933R. 189, 194); Thixton v. Palmer, 210 Ky. 838 ( 276 S. W. 971 , 44 A. L. 1933R. 189, 194); Thixton v. Palmer, 210 Ky. 838 ( 276 S. W. 971 , 44 A. L. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.