258 Mich. App. 175 - Lewis v. LeGrow’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Garretson v. City of Madison Heights (2005), 78 F. Supp. 3d 1051 - In re Carrier IQ, Inc. (2015)
5 federal appellate · 20 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
Relies on Katz v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · Roberts v. Auto-Owners Insurance · Spiek v. Department of Transportation · Beaumont v. Brown
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This Court reviews claims of instructional error de novo. MCR 2.516(D)(2) states that the trial court must give a jury instruction if a party requests such instruction and it is applicable to the case. We review for abuse of discretion the trial court's determination whether a standard jury instruction is applicable and accurate. The trial court's jury instructions must include all the elements of the plaintiffs' claims and should not omit any material issues, defenses, or theories of the parties that the evidence supports.... If, on balance, the theories of the parties and the applicable law are adequately and fairly presented to the jury, no error requiring reversal occurs. Reversal based on instructional error is only required where the failure to reverse would be inconsistent with substantial justice. MCR 2.613(A).... [ Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich.App. 175, 211-212 , 670 N.W.2d 675 (2003) (citations omitted).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“only in the extreme case where the result is so palpably and grossly contrary to fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a defiance of judgment, or the exercise of passion or bias, or where an unprejudiced person, considering the facts on which the trial court acted, would say that there was no justification or excuse for the ruling made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“must consider the available pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and other documentary evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
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.