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 1968–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Woods v. SLB Property Management, LLCgreen2 sentences2022See Woods v SLB Prop Mgt, LLC, 277 Mich App 622, 630 ; 750 NW2d 2128 (2008) (“We find no abuse of discretion in denying a motion resting on a legal theory and facts which could have been pled or argued prior to the trial court’s original order.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 11 We note that, although we are vacating the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiffs, we do not disturb its specific holdings that are not the subject of this appeal. -9- 2022See Woods v SLB Prop Mgt, LLC, 277 Mich App 622, 630 ; 750 NW2d 2128 (2008) (“We find no abuse of discretion in denying a motion resting on a legal theory and facts which could have been pled or argued prior to the trial court’s original order.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 11 We note that, although we are vacating the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiffs, we do not disturb its specific holdings that are not the subject of this appeal. -9- | 2 | 2 |
McMorran v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2014See Warren City Charter, § 9.9(b); see also McMorran v Wright, 74 Mich 356, 358-359 ; 41 NW 1082 (1889). 2014See Warren City Charter, § 9.9(b); see also McMorran v Wright, 74 Mich 356, 358-359 ; 41 NW 1082 (1889). | 1 | 1 |
Ungar v. Sarafitegreen2 sentences1968See also Ungar v. Sarafite (1964), 376 US 575 ( 84 S Ct 841 , 11 L ed 921, rehearing denied 377 US 925 , 84 S Ct 1218 , 12 L ed 217), where the Court ruled there had been neither a denial of due process nor an abuse of discretion in refusing a continuance to one charged with contempt of court who had less than five full days’ notice of the time set for hearing and waited until the very day of hearing to retain counsel. 1968See also Ungar v. Sarafite (1964), 376 US 575 ( 84 S Ct 841 , 11 L ed 921, rehearing denied 377 US 925 , 84 S Ct 1218 , 12 L ed 217), where the Court ruled there had been neither a denial of due process nor an abuse of discretion in refusing a continuance to one charged with contempt of court who had less than five full days’ notice of the time set for hearing and waited until the very day of hearing to retain counsel. | 1 | 1 |
Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Federal Power Commissiongreen1 sentence1968See also Ungar v. Sarafite (1964), 376 US 575 ( 84 S Ct 841 , 11 L ed 921, rehearing denied 377 US 925 , 84 S Ct 1218 , 12 L ed 217), where the Court ruled there had been neither a denial of due process nor an abuse of discretion in refusing a continuance to one charged with contempt of court who had less than five full days’ notice of the time set for hearing and waited until the very day of hearing to retain counsel. | 1 | 1 |
Wirtz v. Modern Trashmoval, Inc.green1 sentence1968See also Ungar v. Sarafite (1964), 376 US 575 ( 84 S Ct 841 , 11 L ed 921, rehearing denied 377 US 925 , 84 S Ct 1218 , 12 L ed 217), where the Court ruled there had been neither a denial of due process nor an abuse of discretion in refusing a continuance to one charged with contempt of court who had less than five full days’ notice of the time set for hearing and waited until the very day of hearing to retain counsel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kemerko Clawson, LLC v. RXIV Inc.
green
1 sentence2025MCR 2.401(B)(2)(a)(ii); Kemerko Clawson LLC, 269 Mich App at 349 . -3- (i) a written motion under this rule with supporting brief and any affidavits must be filed and served at least 21 days before the time set for the hearing, and (ii) any response to the motion (including brief and any affidavits) must be filed and served at least 7 days before the hearing. * * * (b) If the court sets a different time for filing and serving a motion, or a reply brief, its authorization must be endorsed in writing on the face of the notice of hearing or made by separate order. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Duray Development, LLC v. Perrin
green
2 sentences2020In this regard, we do not read the trial court’s order as preventing the filing of a new petition upon a material change in circumstances. 2 MCR 2.402(B) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] court may, on its own initiative or on the written request of a party, direct that communication equipment be used for a motion hearing, pretrial conference, scheduling conference, or status conference.” 3 MCR 2.119(C)(1) provides: Unless a different period is set by these rules or by the court for good cause, a written motion (other than one that may be heard ex parte), notice of the hearing on the motio 2020In this regard, we do not read the trial court’s order as preventing the filing of a new petition upon a material change in circumstances. 2 MCR 2.402(B) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] court may, on its own initiative or on the written request of a party, direct that communication equipment be used for a motion hearing, pretrial conference, scheduling conference, or status conference.” 3 MCR 2.119(C)(1) provides: Unless a different period is set by these rules or by the court for good cause, a written motion (other than one that may be heard ex parte), notice of the hearing on the motio | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Dean v. Tucker
green
2 sentences2020In doing so, the trial court should address on the record the applicable factors set forth in Dean v Tucker, 182 Mich App 27, 32-33 ; 451 NW2d 571 (1990). 2020In doing so, the trial court should address on the record the applicable factors set forth in Dean v Tucker, 182 Mich App 27, 32-33 ; 451 NW2d 571 (1990). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.