Hall v. Hanson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• because the defendants sought to vacate or otherwise alter the plats dedicating the boulevard to the public, they should have brought their countercomplaint pursuant to the Land Division Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Adams v. Adams
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 2007-11-27· cited 198×
• Beach v. Lima Township
  Michigan Supreme Court· 2011-06-03· cited 56×
• Martin v. Beldean
  Michigan Supreme Court· 2004-03-31· cited 27×
• Beach v. Lima Township
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 2009-04-21· cited 21×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Beasley
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 2000-04-19· cited 53×
• Kraus v. MICH. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
  Michigan Supreme Court· 1996-05-21· cited 27×
• McGoldrick v. Holiday Amusements, Inc.
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 2000-10-18· cited 24×
• Christiansen v Gerrish Township
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 2000-04-04· cited 21×
• In Re JUDE
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 1998-06-17· cited 15×
• Gondek v. Neal
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 1976-05-18· cited 12×
• Jacobs v. Lyon Township
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 1993-05-18· cited 11×
• Hall v. Hanson
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 2003-02-07· cited 7×
• Binkley v. Asire
  Michigan Supreme Court· 1952-12-09· cited 6×
• Hill v. Houghton Township
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 1981-09-21· cited 6×
• McKay v. Palmer
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 1988-07-20· cited 5×