Michigan Supreme Court· 7/31/2009
Petersen v. Magna Corp.
Citations
- 773 N.W.2d 564
- 484 Mich. 300
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that ambiguity exists “‘when a statute is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in two or more different senses’”
- “[T]he mere fact that different justices of this Court, judges of the Court of Appeals, and trial judges disagree on the meaning of statutory language suggests that ambiguity exists.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Marilyn J. Kelly
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
39 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- McCORMICK v. CARRIERMichigan Supreme Court· 2010-07-31· cited 340×
- People v. FeezelMichigan Supreme Court· 2010-06-08· cited 329×
- Lansing Schools Education Ass'n v. Lansing Board of EducationMichigan Supreme Court· 2010-07-31· cited 279×
- In re MedinaMichigan Court of Appeals· 2016-09-13· cited 164×
- People v. LownMichigan Supreme Court· 2011-01-14· cited 135×
- People v. TannerMichigan Supreme Court· 2014-06-23· cited 126×
- Hamed v. Wayne CountyMichigan Supreme Court· 2011-07-29· cited 124×
- Henry v. Dow Chemical Co.Michigan Supreme Court· 2009-07-31· cited 124×
- Michigan Education Ass'n v. Secretary of StateMichigan Supreme Court· 2010-12-29· cited 121×
- Catherine Puetz Md v. Spectrum Health HospitalsMichigan Court of Appeals· 2018-04-24· cited 97×
- Potter v. McLearyMichigan Supreme Court· 2009-07-31· cited 95×
- 2000 Baum Family Trust v. BabelMichigan Supreme Court· 2010-12-29· cited 75×
- People v. DowdyMichigan Supreme Court· 2011-07-11· cited 48×
- Kyser v. Kasson TwpMichigan Supreme Court· 2010-07-15· cited 39×
- University of Michigan Regents v. Titan Ins AgencyMichigan Supreme Court· 2010-07-31· cited 38×
- Bezeau v. Palace Sports & Entertainment, IncMichigan Supreme Court· 2010-07-31· cited 31×
- Hoover v. Michigan Mutual Insurance CompanyMichigan Supreme Court· 2009-09-25· cited 14×
- Fellows v. Michigan Commission for the BlindMichigan Court of Appeals· 2014-05-20· cited 9×
- Michigan Education Association v. Secretary of StateMichigan Supreme Court· 2010-12-29· cited 5×
- in Re Schwein EstateMichigan Court of Appeals· 2016-01-12· cited 5×
Cites
232 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court· 1978-06-06· cited 41,449×
- Pearson v. CallahanSupreme Court· 2009-01-21· cited 13,928×
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court· 1973-01-22· cited 5,581×
- Monroe v. PapeSupreme Court· 1961-02-20· cited 4,784×
- Bailey v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1995-12-06· cited 3,526×
- Roper v. SimmonsSupreme Court· 2005-03-01· cited 3,523×
- Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court· 1991-09-13· cited 3,458×
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court· 1992-06-29· cited 2,492×
- United States v. DixonSupreme Court· 1993-06-28· cited 2,221×
- Grady v. CorbinSupreme Court· 1990-05-29· cited 1,620×
- Booth v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1987-09-21· cited 1,501×
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. PenaSupreme Court· 1995-06-12· cited 1,322×
- Continental T. v. Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.Supreme Court· 1977-06-23· cited 1,218×
- CBOCS West, Inc. v. HumphriesSupreme Court· 2008-05-27· cited 807×
- Welch v. Texas Department of Highways & Public TransportationSupreme Court· 1987-06-25· cited 779×
- Rory v. Continental InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court· 2005-07-28· cited 747×
- Robinson v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court· 2000-07-18· cited 662×
- Klapp v. United Insurance Group Agency, IncMichigan Supreme Court· 2003-06-18· cited 660×
- Gonzales v. OregonSupreme Court· 2006-01-17· cited 632×
- O'Callahan v. ParkerSupreme Court· 1969-06-02· cited 626×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.