In re Carroll

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing the various requirements for a given “product, service, or accommodation” to be considered an “allowable expense” for purposes of the no-fault act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Agnone v. Home-Owners Insurance Company
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 2015-05-19· cited 4×
• Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
  E.D. Michigan· 2014-07-03

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Johnson v. Recca
  Michigan Supreme Court· 2012-07-30· cited 306×
• Griffith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
  Michigan Supreme Court· 2005-06-14· cited 181×
• Douglas v. Allstate Insurance Company
  Michigan Supreme Court· 2012-07-30· cited 108×
• Van Marter v. American Fidelity Fire Insurance
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 1982-03-17· cited 48×
• Visconti v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 1979-06-05· cited 21×
• In Re Geror
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 2009-11-03· cited 15×
• Fortier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 1984-02-06· cited 13×
• Heinz v. Auto Club Ins Ass'n
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 1995-10-31· cited 9×
• In re Carroll
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 2011-04-26· cited 1×