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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 49 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 Peterson Novelties, Inc v. City of Berkley.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Peterson Novelties, Inc v. City of Berkley Anchor | green | “an appellant's failure to properly address the merits of his assertion of error constitutes abandonment of the issue.” | 18 |
| 2 | Johnson v. Recca | green | “we review de novo motions for summary disposition brought under mcr 2.116(c)(10).” | 12 |
| 3 | Peterson Novelties, Inc v. City of Berkley | green | “an appellant may not merely announce his position and leave it to this court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, nor may he give issues cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting authority.” | 12 |
| 4 | Bronson Methodist Hospital v. Auto-Owners Insurance | green | “the moving party must specifically identify the matters that have no disputed factual issues, and it has the initial burden of supporting its position by affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documentary evidence.” | 7 |
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.