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

Affirmation of Directed Verdict in Products Liability: OWENS v. ALLIS-CHALMERS CORPoration

Affirmation of Directed Verdict in Products Liability: OWENS v. ALLIS-CHALMERS CORPoration

Date: Nov 24, 1982
Affirmation of Directed Verdict in Products Liability: OWENS v. ALLIS-CHALMERS CORPoration Introduction The case of OWENS v. ALLIS-CHALMERS CORPoration, decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan on...
Supremacy of Statutory Limitations in Pension Benefit Claims: Lothian v. City of Detroit

Supremacy of Statutory Limitations in Pension Benefit Claims: Lothian v. City of Detroit

Date: Sep 14, 1982
Supremacy of Statutory Limitations in Pension Benefit Claims: Lothian v. City of Detroit Introduction Robert Lothian, a retired member of the Detroit police force, initiated legal proceedings against...
Preservation of Jury Trial Rights in Default Judgments: Insights from Wood v Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange

Preservation of Jury Trial Rights in Default Judgments: Insights from Wood v Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange

Date: Jun 29, 1982
Preservation of Jury Trial Rights in Default Judgments: Insights from Wood v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange Introduction The landmark case Wood v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance...
Exclusivity of Statutory Remedies in Dramshop Cases: Browder v. International Fidelity Insurance Co.

Exclusivity of Statutory Remedies in Dramshop Cases: Browder v. International Fidelity Insurance Co.

Date: Jun 29, 1982
Exclusivity of Statutory Remedies in Dramshop Cases: Browder v. International Fidelity Insurance Co. Introduction Browder v. International Fidelity Insurance Company, 413 Mich. 603 (1982), is a...
Requiring Explicit Instruction on 'Carrying' Element in Concealed Weapon Cases: People v Butler, 1982

Requiring Explicit Instruction on 'Carrying' Element in Concealed Weapon Cases: People v Butler, 1982

Date: May 28, 1982
Requiring Explicit Instruction on 'Carrying' Element in Concealed Weapon Cases: People v Butler, 1982 Introduction In the landmark case of People v Butler (413 Mich. 377, 1982), the Supreme Court of...
Strict Scrutiny of Similar-Acts Evidence: Insights from PEOPLE v GOLOCHOWICZ

Strict Scrutiny of Similar-Acts Evidence: Insights from PEOPLE v GOLOCHOWICZ

Date: May 18, 1982
Strict Scrutiny of Similar-Acts Evidence: Insights from PEOPLE v GOLOCHOWICZ Introduction In the landmark case PEOPLE v GOLOCHOWICZ (413 Mich. 298, 1982), the Supreme Court of Michigan delved into...
Clarity vs. Protections: The RASKA v. FARM BUREAU Decision on Insurance Policy Exclusions

Clarity vs. Protections: The RASKA v. FARM BUREAU Decision on Insurance Policy Exclusions

Date: Jan 9, 1982
Clarity vs. Protections: The RASKA v. FARM BUREAU Decision on Insurance Policy Exclusions Introduction The case of Raska v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Michigan (412 Mich. 355, 1982)...
Duty of Care Owed by Attorneys to Adverse Parties: Insights from FRIEDMAN v DOZORC

Duty of Care Owed by Attorneys to Adverse Parties: Insights from FRIEDMAN v DOZORC

Date: Nov 24, 1981
Duty of Care Owed by Attorneys to Adverse Parties: Insights from FRIEDMAN v DOZORC Introduction FRIEDMAN v DOZORC (412 Mich. 1), decided on November 23, 1981, by the Supreme Court of Michigan,...
Clarifying Innocent Misrepresentation: United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Black

Clarifying Innocent Misrepresentation: United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Black

Date: Nov 24, 1981
Clarifying Innocent Misrepresentation: United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Black Introduction United States Fidelity Guaranty Company v. Black is a pivotal decision by the Supreme Court of...
Abolition of the Felony-Murder Doctrine in Michigan: Insights from PEOPLE v AARON, PEOPLE v THOMPSON, and PEOPLE v WRIGHT

Abolition of the Felony-Murder Doctrine in Michigan: Insights from PEOPLE v AARON, PEOPLE v THOMPSON, and PEOPLE v WRIGHT

Date: Nov 25, 1980
Abolition of the Felony-Murder Doctrine in Michigan: Insights from PEOPLE v AARON, PEOPLE v THOMPSON, and PEOPLE v WRIGHT Introduction The Supreme Court of Michigan, in the consolidated cases of...
Recognition of Emotional Distress Damages in Breach of Disability Insurance Contracts

Recognition of Emotional Distress Damages in Breach of Disability Insurance Contracts

Date: Aug 6, 1980
Recognition of Emotional Distress Damages in Breach of Disability Insurance Contracts Introduction The case of Kewin v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company adjudicated by the Supreme Court of...
Enforcing Cause-Based Termination in Indefinite Employment Contracts: Insights from TOUSSAINT v. BLUE CROSS Blue Shield of Michigan and EBLING v. MASCO CORPORATION

Enforcing Cause-Based Termination in Indefinite Employment Contracts: Insights from TOUSSAINT v. BLUE CROSS Blue Shield of Michigan and EBLING v. MASCO CORPORATION

Date: Jun 11, 1980
Enforcing Cause-Based Termination in Indefinite Employment Contracts: Insights from TOUSSAINT v. BLUE CROSS Blue Shield of Michigan and EBLING v. MASCO CORPORATION Introduction TOUSSAINT v. BLUE...
Establishing the Standard for Directed Verdicts in Michigan: People v. Hampton

Establishing the Standard for Directed Verdicts in Michigan: People v. Hampton

Date: Nov 27, 1979
Establishing the Standard for Directed Verdicts in Michigan: People v. Hampton Introduction People v. Hampton, 407 Mich. 354 (1979), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Michigan that...
Double Jeopardy Implications of Michigan's Felony-Firearm Statute: Wayne County Prosecutor v. Recorder's Court Judge (1979)

Double Jeopardy Implications of Michigan's Felony-Firearm Statute: Wayne County Prosecutor v. Recorder's Court Judge (1979)

Date: Jun 26, 1979
Double Jeopardy Implications of Michigan's Felony-Firearm Statute: Wayne County Prosecutor v. Recorder's Court Judge (1979) Introduction In the landmark decision of Wayne County Prosecutor v....
Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Comparative Negligence as Replacement for Contributory Negligence in Placek v. City of Sterling Heights

Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Comparative Negligence as Replacement for Contributory Negligence in Placek v. City of Sterling Heights

Date: Feb 9, 1979
Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Comparative Negligence as Replacement for Contributory Negligence in Placek v. City of Sterling Heights Introduction Placek v. City of Sterling Heights (405 Mich....
Reinterpreting No-Fault Insurance Subtractions: Insights from Workman v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange

Reinterpreting No-Fault Insurance Subtractions: Insights from Workman v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange

Date: Jan 5, 1979
Reinterpreting No-Fault Insurance Subtractions: Insights from Workman v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange Introduction Workman v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, decided by...
Michigan Supreme Court Upholds Facial Unconstitutionality of §3109(1) Set-Off Provision under Equal Protection and Due Process

Michigan Supreme Court Upholds Facial Unconstitutionality of §3109(1) Set-Off Provision under Equal Protection and Due Process

Date: Jan 5, 1979
Michigan Supreme Court Upholds Facial Unconstitutionality of §3109(1) Set-Off Provision under Equal Protection and Due Process Introduction In O'Donnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance...
Hospital Vicarious Liability for Medical Negligence: Comprehensive Analysis of Grewe v. Mount Clemens General Hospital

Hospital Vicarious Liability for Medical Negligence: Comprehensive Analysis of Grewe v. Mount Clemens General Hospital

Date: Dec 29, 1978
Hospital Vicarious Liability for Medical Negligence: Comprehensive Analysis of Grewe v. Mount Clemens General Hospital Introduction Grewe v. Mount Clemens General Hospital, 404 Mich. 240 (1978), is a...
Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Due Process Requirements for Compulsory No-Fault Insurance in SHAVERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Due Process Requirements for Compulsory No-Fault Insurance in SHAVERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Date: Jun 2, 1978
Michigan Supreme Court Establishes Due Process Requirements for Compulsory No-Fault Insurance in SHAVERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL Introduction SHAVERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, decided by the Supreme Court of...
Affirmation of Admissibility of Similar Acts Evidence in Proving Intent: Analysis of PEOPLE v DUNCAN & McINTOSH

Affirmation of Admissibility of Similar Acts Evidence in Proving Intent: Analysis of PEOPLE v DUNCAN & McINTOSH

Date: Nov 29, 1977
Affirmation of Admissibility of Similar Acts Evidence in Proving Intent: Analysis of PEOPLE v DUNCAN & McINTOSH Introduction PEOPLE v DUNCAN & McINTOSH, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Michigan...
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