242 Mich. App. 521 - Staff v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
May 2007
most recently cited
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“on a showing that the facts on which the notice is based were not and could not with reasonable diligence have been known to the moving party earlier, provided that the late filing of the notice does not result in unfair prejudice to the opposing party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bint v. Doe“[a] cause of action added under this subsection is not barred by a period of limitation unless the cause of action would have been barred by a period of limitation at the time of the filing of the original action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bint v. Doe“[b]ecause plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements and the litigation against defendants was commenced after the statutory two-year period, we reverse. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bint v. Doe
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.