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 1930–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Beglinger Trustgreen2 sentences2015See In re Beglinger Trust, 221 Mich App 273, 276-277 ; 561 NW2d 130 (1997). 2015See In re Beglinger Trust, 221 Mich App 273, 276-277 ; 561 NW2d 130 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Illinois Central Railroad v. Chicagogreen2 sentences2005In determining the scope of the trust doctrine in Illinois Central II, the United States Supreme Court looked to “the law of the State of Illinois, as laid down by the Supreme Court....” Id. at 659. 2005In determining the scope of the trust doctrine in Illinois Central II, the United States Supreme Court looked to "the law of the State of Illinois, as laid down by the Supreme Court...." Id. at 659, 20 S.Ct. 509 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Green Oak Township v. Munzel
green
2 sentences2017Appellants “may not merely announce [their] position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for [their] claims.” Green Oak Twp v Munzel, 255 Mich App 235, 244 ; 661 NW2d 243 (2003). -7- summary disposition for Handicraft and Cramer or abuse its discretion in dismissing the Trust’s claim for injunctive relief. 2017Appellants “may not merely announce [their] position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for [their] claims.” Green Oak Twp v Munzel, 255 Mich App 235, 244 ; 661 NW2d 243 (2003). -7- summary disposition for Handicraft and Cramer or abuse its discretion in dismissing the Trust’s claim for injunctive relief. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Patton v. Chamberlain
neutral
1 sentence1936Patton v. Chamberlain, 44 Mich. 5 . | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Eipper v. Benner
neutral
1 sentence1936A. 858)—which were referred to in the late case of Eipper v. Benner, 113 Mich. 75, 80 , where it was not found necessary to decide the question. ’ ’ Nor is such a trust a violation of the statute of frauds. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Lincoln v. Davis
green
1 sentence1930Five cases were cited by Justice Grant: *208 (1) La Plaisance Bay Harbor Co. v. City of Monroe, supra, which announced the trust doctrine as to submerged lands and contained no reference to boundaries except “the proprietor of the adjacent shore has no property whatever in the land covered by the water of the lake.” (2) Lincoln v. Davis (1884), 53 Mich. 375 ( 51 Am. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
People v. Warner
green
1 sentence1930A. 694), which also stated the trust doctrine, and in which the only reference to boundaries was, with citation of cases: “All hold that the fee of the riparian owner ceases at the low-water mark.” (4) People v. Warner (1898), 116 Mich. 228 , which was a relicted land case and will be more fully discussed later. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
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.