Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 196 Mich. App. 135 - Schutte v. Celotex Corp.

196 Mich. App. 135 - Schutte v. Celotex Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
3
states following
August 2013
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2013

8 state decisions

40199220002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[An appellate] Court reviews a trial court’s decision regarding a motion for a directed verdict to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, a question of fact for the jury existed. Stoken v. J.E.T. Electronics & Technology, Inc., 174 Mich.App. 457, 463 [ 436 N.W.2d 389 ] (1988). The trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for a directed verdict will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court abused its discretion. Howard v. Canteen Corp., 192 Mich.App. 427, 431 [ 481 N.W.2d 718 ] (1992). Similarly, judgment notwithstanding the verdict is improper where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could differ. Byrne v. Schneider’s Iron & Metal, Inc., 190 Mich.App. 176, 179 [ 475 N.W.2d 854 ] (1991).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In certain situations . . . where the consequences. . . are severe, the lack of warning is undisputed, and the person . . . is dead, the jury may be permitted to infer that a warning would have been heeded and that the failure to warn was a proximate cause of the injury. Not only would it be virtually impossible to prove what the decedent would have done had he been warned, but, as a practical matter, nothing more is added in this case by having a witness merely state that, had the danger been known . . . he would have acted to avoid the danger.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.