222 Mich. App. 513 - Phinney v. Perlmutter’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 235 Mich. App. 550 - TUCKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. Allied Chucker Co. (1999), Cooper v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n (2008)
6 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the WPA, [a]n employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee ... because the employee ... reports ..., verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or because an employee is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The standard of review for JNOV requires review of the evidence and all legitimate inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Only if the evidence, so viewed, fails to establish a claim as a matter of law, should a motion for JNOV be granted. Similarly, in deciding a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, making all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. This Court reviews all the evidence presented up to the time of the motion to determine whether a question of fact existed. [ Phinney v. Perlmutter, 222 Mich.App. 513, 524-525 , 564 N.W.2d 532 (1997) (citations omitted).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In evaluating whether such course of conduct exists, Michigan Courts have considered: (1) whether the alleged acts involve the same type of discrimination; (2) whether the alleged acts are recurring or isolated; and (3) the degree of permanence of the act — i.e., whether it should indicate to the employee that he or she should assert his or her rights.”
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.