Log In
  • US
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Supreme Court
  • High Courts
    All High Courts
    Allahabad High Court
    Andhra Pradesh High Court
    Bombay High Court
    Calcutta High Court
    Chhattisgarh High Court
    Delhi High Court
    Gauhati High Court
    Gujarat High Court
    Himachal Pradesh High Court
    Jammu and Kashmir High Court
    Jharkhand High Court
    Karnataka High Court
    Kerala High Court
    Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Madras High Court
    Manipur High Court
    Meghalaya High Court
    Orissa High Court
    Patna High Court
    Punjab & Haryana High Court
    Rajasthan High Court
    Sikkim High Court
    Telangana High Court
    Tripura High Court
    Uttarakhand High Court
Log In Sign Up India Judgments
  • US
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments

Michigan Case Commentaries

Thornton v. Allstate Insurance Company: Defining Limits of No-Fault Insurance Coverage in Assault Cases

Thornton v. Allstate Insurance Company: Defining Limits of No-Fault Insurance Coverage in Assault Cases

Date: Aug 8, 1986
Thornton v. Allstate Insurance Company: Defining Limits of No-Fault Insurance Coverage in Assault Cases Introduction Thornton v. Allstate Insurance Company is a pivotal 1986 decision by the Supreme...
Reversing Age Discrimination Verdict: MATRAS v AMOCO OIL COMPANY

Reversing Age Discrimination Verdict: MATRAS v AMOCO OIL COMPANY

Date: Apr 19, 1986
Reversing Age Discrimination Verdict: MATRAS v AMOCO OIL COMPANY Introduction MATRAS v AMOCO OIL COMPANY is a landmark case adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Michigan on April 18, 1986. The dispute...
Clarifying "Mental Anguish" in Criminal Sexual Conduct: Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Precise Standard

Clarifying "Mental Anguish" in Criminal Sexual Conduct: Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Precise Standard

Date: Dec 31, 1985
Clarifying "Mental Anguish" in Criminal Sexual Conduct: Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Precise Standard Introduction The Supreme Court of Michigan, in the consolidated cases of People v Petrella...
Affirmation of Felony-Murder Conviction Based on Adequate Jury Instructions on Malice and Intent

Affirmation of Felony-Murder Conviction Based on Adequate Jury Instructions on Malice and Intent

Date: Nov 14, 1985
Affirmation of Felony-Murder Conviction Based on Adequate Jury Instructions on Malice and Intent Introduction The Supreme Court of Michigan, in the landmark case of People v. Kelly (423 Mich. 261,...
Michigan Supreme Court Restricts Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims in Insurance Cases: Roberts v. Auto-Owners Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court Restricts Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims in Insurance Cases: Roberts v. Auto-Owners Insurance

Date: Oct 2, 1985
Michigan Supreme Court Restricts Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims in Insurance Cases: Roberts v. Auto-Owners Insurance Introduction The case of Roberts v. Auto-Owners Insurance...
Revisiting Prescriptive Easement Burdens: Insights from Widmayer v Leonard (1985)

Revisiting Prescriptive Easement Burdens: Insights from Widmayer v Leonard (1985)

Date: Aug 27, 1985
Revisiting Prescriptive Easement Burdens: Insights from Widmayer v Leonard (1985) Introduction Widmayer v Leonard, decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan on August 26, 1985, addresses pivotal...
Establishing Employer Liability Across Corporate Boundaries: The Economic Reality Test in WELLS v. FIRESTONE Tire

Establishing Employer Liability Across Corporate Boundaries: The Economic Reality Test in WELLS v. FIRESTONE Tire

Date: Dec 29, 1984
Establishing Employer Liability Across Corporate Boundaries: The Economic Reality Test in WELLS v. FIRESTONE Tire Introduction The case of WELLS v. FIRESTONE Tire and Rubber Company (421 Mich. 641),...
Refining Trade Secret Protection: Insights from Hayes-Albion Corp. v. Kuberski

Refining Trade Secret Protection: Insights from Hayes-Albion Corp. v. Kuberski

Date: Dec 29, 1984
Refining Trade Secret Protection: Insights from Hayes-Albion Corporation v. Kuberski Introduction The case of Hayes-Albion Corporation v. Kuberski, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Michigan in...
PRENTIS v. YALE Manufacturing Company: Establishing a Pure Negligence Risk-Utility Test for Design Defects in Product Liability

PRENTIS v. YALE Manufacturing Company: Establishing a Pure Negligence Risk-Utility Test for Design Defects in Product Liability

Date: Dec 29, 1984
PRENTIS v. YALE Manufacturing Company: Establishing a Pure Negligence Risk-Utility Test for Design Defects in Product Liability Introduction PRENTIS v. YALE Manufacturing Company is a seminal case...
Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Comprehensive Framework for Governmental and Sovereign Immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act

Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Comprehensive Framework for Governmental and Sovereign Immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act

Date: Dec 29, 1984
Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Comprehensive Framework for Governmental and Sovereign Immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act Introduction The Michigan Supreme Court delivered a...
Balancing Confrontation Rights and Victim Protection: Insights from People v Hackett and Paquette

Balancing Confrontation Rights and Victim Protection: Insights from People v Hackett and Paquette

Date: Dec 29, 1984
Balancing Confrontation Rights and Victim Protection: Insights from People v Hackett and Paquette Introduction The Supreme Court of Michigan's decision in People v Hackett and People v Paquette (421...
Double Jeopardy Clause and Multiple Punishment: Insights from PEOPLE v. ROBIDEAU, GRIFFIN, BROWN, and BOUKNIGHT

Double Jeopardy Clause and Multiple Punishment: Insights from PEOPLE v. ROBIDEAU, GRIFFIN, BROWN, and BOUKNIGHT

Date: Sep 19, 1984
Double Jeopardy Clause and Multiple Punishment: Insights from PEOPLE v. ROBIDEAU, GRIFFIN, BROWN, and BOUKNIGHT Introduction The case of PEOPLE v. ROBIDEAU, GRIFFIN, BROWN, and BOUKNIGHT (419 Mich....
Prospective Application of 'Name and Retain' Provision in Michigan's Dramshop Act: Insights from TEBO v HAVLIK BURNS v CARVER

Prospective Application of 'Name and Retain' Provision in Michigan's Dramshop Act: Insights from TEBO v HAVLIK BURNS v CARVER

Date: Feb 7, 1984
Prospective Application of 'Name and Retain' Provision in Michigan's Dramshop Act: Insights from TEBO v HAVLIK BURNS v CARVER Introduction The case of TEBO v HAVLIK BURNS v CARVER (418 Mich. 350),...
Affirmation of Alternative Liability in DES Cases: Abel v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Affirmation of Alternative Liability in DES Cases: Abel v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Date: Feb 7, 1984
Affirmation of Alternative Liability in DES Cases: Abel v. Eli Lilly & Co. Introduction Abel v. Eli Lilly & Company is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Michigan, delivered on February 6,...
Expansion of Appellate Review in Sentencing: PEOPLE v. Coles, Gonzales, & Waits Establishes New Precedent

Expansion of Appellate Review in Sentencing: PEOPLE v. Coles, Gonzales, & Waits Establishes New Precedent

Date: Oct 25, 1983
Expansion of Appellate Review in Sentencing: PEOPLE v. Coles, Gonzales, & Waits Establishes New Precedent Introduction In the landmark decision of PEOPLE v. Coles, Gonzales, & Waits (417 Mich. 523),...
Reaffirming Articulable Suspicion: Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Burrell and Brown (1983)

Reaffirming Articulable Suspicion: Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Burrell and Brown (1983)

Date: Oct 18, 1983
Reaffirming Articulable Suspicion: Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Burrell and Brown (1983) Introduction The case of People v. Burrell and People v Brown, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of...
People v Killebrew and Briggs: Defining Judicial Role in Sentence Bargaining under Michigan Law

People v Killebrew and Briggs: Defining Judicial Role in Sentence Bargaining under Michigan Law

Date: Dec 24, 1982
People v Killebrew and Briggs: Defining Judicial Role in Sentence Bargaining under Michigan Law Introduction People v Killebrew and People v Briggs are landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court of...
Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Judicial Oversight on Arbitration in Automobile Uninsured Motorist Coverage

Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Judicial Oversight on Arbitration in Automobile Uninsured Motorist Coverage

Date: Dec 24, 1982
Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Judicial Oversight on Arbitration in Automobile Uninsured Motorist Coverage Introduction In the landmark case of Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v....
Establishing Comparative Negligence in Implied Warranty Product Liability Actions: Analysis of In re CERTIFIED QUESTIONS KARL v BRYANT AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY

Establishing Comparative Negligence in Implied Warranty Product Liability Actions: Analysis of In re CERTIFIED QUESTIONS KARL v BRYANT AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY

Date: Dec 24, 1982
Establishing Comparative Negligence in Implied Warranty Product Liability Actions Analysis of In re CERTIFIED QUESTIONS KARL v BRYANT AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY Introduction In the landmark case of In...
Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Attorney General's Authority to Enforce Consumer Protection and Usury Laws Against Licensed Real Estate Brokers

Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Attorney General's Authority to Enforce Consumer Protection and Usury Laws Against Licensed Real Estate Brokers

Date: Dec 8, 1982
Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Attorney General's Authority to Enforce Consumer Protection and Usury Laws Against Licensed Real Estate Brokers Introduction ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DIAMOND MORTGAGE...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • Judgment Takedown Policy (India)
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases
  • Acts

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert