6 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kloian v. Domino's Pizza, LLC
green
2 sentences2017Plaintiff, relying on Kloian v Domino’s Pizza LLC, 273 Mich App 449, 456-460 ; 733 NW2d 766 , 773 (2006), argues that because “this Court held that an email from counsel to his opposite was sufficient to bind counsel and his client, [that] [a]ccordingly, an email from counsel is a writing subscribed by that party’s counsel as required by MCR 2.507(G).” In Kloian, this Court discussed whether a modification of a settlement agreement satisfied the subscription requirement in MCR 2.507(G)1 so as to constitute a binding agreement. 2017Plaintiff, relying on Kloian v Domino’s Pizza LLC, 273 Mich App 449, 456-460 ; 733 NW2d 766 , 773 (2006), argues that because “this Court held that an email from counsel to his opposite was sufficient to bind counsel and his client, [that] [a]ccordingly, an email from counsel is a writing subscribed by that party’s counsel as required by MCR 2.507(G).” In Kloian, this Court discussed whether a modification of a settlement agreement satisfied the subscription requirement in MCR 2.507(G)1 so as to constitute a binding agreement. | 6 | 2015–2018 |
Shinholster v. Annapolis Hospital
green
2 sentences2017Plaintiff, relying on Kloian v Domino’s Pizza LLC, 273 Mich App 449, 456-460 ; 733 NW2d 766 , 773 (2006), argues that because “this Court held that an email from counsel to his opposite was sufficient to bind counsel and his client, [that] [a]ccordingly, an email from counsel is a writing subscribed by that party’s counsel as required by MCR 2.507(G).” In Kloian, this Court discussed whether a modification of a settlement agreement satisfied the subscription requirement in MCR 2.507(G)1 so as to constitute a binding agreement. 2017Plaintiff, relying on Kloian v Domino’s Pizza LLC, 273 Mich App 449, 456-460 ; 733 NW2d 766 , 773 (2006), argues that because “this Court held that an email from counsel to his opposite was sufficient to bind counsel and his client, [that] [a]ccordingly, an email from counsel is a writing subscribed by that party’s counsel as required by MCR 2.507(G).” In Kloian, this Court discussed whether a modification of a settlement agreement satisfied the subscription requirement in MCR 2.507(G)1 so as to constitute a binding agreement. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
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.
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.