stipulation exception (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

stipulation exception in Michigan

6 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1897–2023 3 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Ericksengreen
michctapp · 2010 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021See People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010) (“Failing to advance a meritless argument or raise a futile objection does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”).

2021See People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010) (“Failing to advance a meritless argument or raise a futile objection does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”).

22
People v. Trakhtenberggreen
mich · 2012 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich at 52 .

11

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
Utter v. Travelers' Insurance green
mich · 1887
2 sentences

1920Utter v. Insurance Co., 65 Mich. 545 ( 8 Am.

1919In Utter v. Insurance Co., 65 Mich. 545 , Justice Morse, speaking for the court, said: “When a stipulation or exception to a policy of insurance, emanating from the insurers, is capable of two meanings, the one is to be adopted which is the most favorable to the insured. 1 May on Insurance, §§ 174, 175; 1 Wood on Insurance (2d Ed.), §§ 60, 62; Allen v. Insurance Co., 85 N. Y. 473 .” In the case of Grand Rapids Electric Light & Power Co. v. Casualty Co., 111 Mich. 148 , Chief Justice LONG, speaking for the court, said: “In Anderson v. Fitzgerald, 4 H.

31897–1920
Thompson v. Phenix Insurance green
scotus · 1890
1 sentence

1920App. 631 ; Thompson v. Insurance Co., 136 U. S. 287 (10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1019). * * * “If this language in the policy is ambiguous and susceptible of two constructions, then the question must be solved in favor of the insured; for it is well settled in this State that where a stipulation or exception to a policy, emanating from the insurer, is capable of two meanings, the one is to be adopted which is the most favorable to the insured; that it ought to be framed with such deliberate care that no form of expression by which, on the one hand, the party insured can be caught, or by which, on the oth

11920–1920
Allen v. . St. Louis Insurance Co. green
ny · 1881
1 sentence

1919In Utter v. Insurance Co., 65 Mich. 545 , Justice Morse, speaking for the court, said: “When a stipulation or exception to a policy of insurance, emanating from the insurers, is capable of two meanings, the one is to be adopted which is the most favorable to the insured. 1 May on Insurance, §§ 174, 175; 1 Wood on Insurance (2d Ed.), §§ 60, 62; Allen v. Insurance Co., 85 N. Y. 473 .” In the case of Grand Rapids Electric Light & Power Co. v. Casualty Co., 111 Mich. 148 , Chief Justice LONG, speaking for the court, said: “In Anderson v. Fitzgerald, 4 H.

11919–1919
Grand Rapids Electric Light & Power Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. green
mich · 1896
1 sentence

1919In Utter v. Insurance Co., 65 Mich. 545 , Justice Morse, speaking for the court, said: “When a stipulation or exception to a policy of insurance, emanating from the insurers, is capable of two meanings, the one is to be adopted which is the most favorable to the insured. 1 May on Insurance, §§ 174, 175; 1 Wood on Insurance (2d Ed.), §§ 60, 62; Allen v. Insurance Co., 85 N. Y. 473 .” In the case of Grand Rapids Electric Light & Power Co. v. Casualty Co., 111 Mich. 148 , Chief Justice LONG, speaking for the court, said: “In Anderson v. Fitzgerald, 4 H.

11919–1919

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.12 (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

CA 45 (1925–2025) NY 25 (1897–2025) IA 13 (1902–2021) FL 12 (1992–2026) IL 11 (1943–2026) TX 9 (1917–2022) PA 8 (1883–2022) IN 6 (1981–2026) DC 6 (1984–2015) WA 6 (1915–2025) NJ 6 (1953–2024) OH 6 (1917–2026) MN 6 (1985–2015) MI 6 (1897–2023) NC 5 (1959–2019) LA 5 (1967–2019) CO 5 (1891–2017) OK 5 (1953–2010) MA 5 (1971–2000) ID 4 (1906–2013) HI 4 (2012–2019) WI 4 (1978–2005) AZ 4 (1968–2019) CT 4 (1931–1989) KS 3 (1956–2021) AR 3 (1981–2020) NM 3 (1969–2018) MD 3 (1911–2018) KY 2 (1897–2023) UT 2 (1992–2000) AK 2 (2010–2024) GA 2 (1947–2005)

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