194 Mich. App. 95 - Ewing v. Bolden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Regardless of when the claim acerued, the tolling provision is not applicable if the plaintiff had a means of obtaining personal jurisdiction and proper service over the defendant who was no longer in this state. The {trial court] had personal jurisdiction over defendant when the court issued the original judgment of divorce.... Any subsequent action based on the original judgment, even if brought pursuant to a new complaint, is deemed to be a continuation of the original action so that jurisdiction is proper in the court that rendered the original judgment. Consequently, the action filed in 1989 to collect the original judgment was merely a continuation of the 1956 divorcee action and the [trial court] continued to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Moreover, new process is not required to reduce a child support obligation to an enforceable, final judgment if there was personal jurisdiction over the parties at the time the judgment of divorce was granted. In this case, because the action to collect the divoree judgment was merely a continuation of the divoree action, service of process would not have been necessary, only notice to defendant of the relief sought. Regardless, the court rules provide for substituted service of process for nonresident defendants subject to personal jurisdiction in this state. We find that the [trial court] had continuing personal jurisdiction over defendant in: this case, MCL. § 600.5858; M.S.A. § 274.5853, and that plaintiff had a m”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Haton v. Haton

2. “If any person is outside of this state at the time any claim accrues against him the period of limitation shall only begin to run when he enters this state unless a means of service of process sufficient to vest the jurisdiction of a Michigan court over him was available to the plaintiff. If after any claim acerues the person against whom the claim accrued is absent from this state, any and all periods of absence in excess of 2 months at a time shall not be counted as any part of the time limited for the commencement of the action unless while he was outside of this state a means for service of process sufficient to vest the jurisdiction of a Michigan court over him was available to the plaintiff.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Haton v. Haton

3. “The purpose of a tolling provision is to protect the right of a plaintiff to bring an action and to prevent a defendant from defeating a claim by absenting himself from the jurisdiction. It preserves [the] plaintiff's claim until such time as service on the defendant is made available. Statutes of limitation are designed to promote diligence on the part of the plaintiff, to prevent the litigation of stale claims and to establish a reasonable, but limited, time for bringing an action.... The mere fact of a defendant's absence from the state will not suspend the limitation period when the defendant is amenable to process and subject to the jurisdiction of the court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Haton v. Haton