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.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 26 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Velez v. Tuma.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Velez v. Tuma Anchor | green | “the common law remains in force until 'changed, amended or repealed.” | 6 |
| 2 | Brown v. Brown | green | “foreseeability of the harm, degree of certainty of injury, closeness of connection between the conduct and injury, moral blame attached to the conduct, policy of preventing future harm, and . . . the burdens and consequences of imposing a duty and the resulting liability for bre…” | 4 |
| 3 | Decker v. New England Public Warehouse, Inc. | green | “the savage rule simply extends the industry's reasonable understanding to negligence suits involving carriers and shippers.” | 4 |
| 4 | Millross v. Plum Hollow Golf Club | green | “in general, where comprehensive legislation prescribes in detail a course of conduct to pursue and the parties and things affected, and designates specific limitations and exceptions, the legislature will be found to have intended that the statute supersede and replace the commo…” | 3 |
| 5 | Millross v. Plum Hollow Golf Club | green | “where comprehensive legislation prescribes in detail a course of conduct to pursue and the parties and things affected, and designates specific limitations and exceptions” | 3 |
| 6 | Belcher v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company | green | “a comprehensive scheme of compensation designed to provide sure and speedy recovery of certain economic losses resulting from motor vehicle accidents.” | 3 |
| 7 | McMaster v. Dte Energy Co. | neutral | “(1) whether the enactment of mcl 480.11a abrogated the appellee's common- law duty of ordinary care with respect to loading cargo for transport by a commercial motor vehicle operated by the appellant; and (2) whether the appellee owed a duty to the appellant under the 'shipper's…” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.