6 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1911–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Bureau of Safety & Regulationgreen1 sentence2021Id. at 202-203 (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bradley v. Mid-Century Insurance
green
2 sentences1982Bradley v Mid-Century Ins Co, 409 Mich 1 ; 294 NW2d 141 (1980). 1982Bradley v Mid-Century Ins Co, 409 Mich 1 ; 294 NW2d 141 (1980). | 2 | 1980–1982 |
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc v. City of Hamtramck
green
2 sentences2016For example, in People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 55 ; 753 NW2d 78 (2008), the Court held that it was error to construe “the unambiguous terms of [a] statute by reference to legislative history.” Similarly, in American Axle & Mfg, Inc v City of Hamtramck, 461 Mich 352, 362 ; 604 NW2d 330 (2000), the Court explained that this Court erred when it looked to drafters’ notes to interpret an unambiguous clause in the state constitution, explaining, “[t]he Court of Appeals, however, did not analyze the language of art 9, § 31, but rather primarily examined drafters’ notes relating to the amendment. 2016For example, in People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 55 ; 753 NW2d 78 (2008), the Court held that it was error to construe “the unambiguous terms of [a] statute by reference to legislative history.” Similarly, in American Axle & Mfg, Inc v City of Hamtramck, 461 Mich 352, 362 ; 604 NW2d 330 (2000), the Court explained that this Court erred when it looked to drafters’ notes to interpret an unambiguous clause in the state constitution, explaining, “[t]he Court of Appeals, however, did not analyze the language of art 9, § 31, but rather primarily examined drafters’ notes relating to the amendment. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Gardner
green
2 sentences2016For example, in People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 55 ; 753 NW2d 78 (2008), the Court held that it was error to construe “the unambiguous terms of [a] statute by reference to legislative history.” Similarly, in American Axle & Mfg, Inc v City of Hamtramck, 461 Mich 352, 362 ; 604 NW2d 330 (2000), the Court explained that this Court erred when it looked to drafters’ notes to interpret an unambiguous clause in the state constitution, explaining, “[t]he Court of Appeals, however, did not analyze the language of art 9, § 31, but rather primarily examined drafters’ notes relating to the amendment. 2016For example, in People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 55 ; 753 NW2d 78 (2008), the Court held that it was error to construe “the unambiguous terms of [a] statute by reference to legislative history.” Similarly, in American Axle & Mfg, Inc v City of Hamtramck, 461 Mich 352, 362 ; 604 NW2d 330 (2000), the Court explained that this Court erred when it looked to drafters’ notes to interpret an unambiguous clause in the state constitution, explaining, “[t]he Court of Appeals, however, did not analyze the language of art 9, § 31, but rather primarily examined drafters’ notes relating to the amendment. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin
green
2 sentences1979As the Advisory Committee's Note explained, the Rule was intended to insure that the judgment, whether favorable or not, would bind all class members who did not request exclusion from the suit. * * * Accordingly, each class member who can be identified through reasonable effort must be notified that he may request exclusion from the action and thereby preserve his opportunity to press his claim separately or that he may remain in the class and perhaps participate in the management of the action." 417 US 156, 176 . 1979As the Advisory Committee’s Note explained, the Rule was intended to insure that the judgment, whether favorable or not, would bind all class members who did not request exclusion from the suit. * * * Accordingly, each class member who can be identified through reasonable effort must be notified that he may request exclusion from the action and thereby preserve his opportunity to press his claim separately or that he may remain in the class and perhaps participate in the management of the action.” 417 US 156, 176 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Cohen v. Jackoboice
neutral
2 sentences1911Cohen v. Jackoboice, 101 Mich. 409 ( 59 N. W. 665 ), and cases cited and digested. 1911Cohen v. Jackoboice, 101 Mich. 409 ( 59 N. W. 665 ), and cases cited and digested. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.