Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Conservation Dept. v. Brown

335 Mich. 343 (Mich. 1952)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Conservation Dept. v. Brown

28 Citing cases

  1. Madugula v. Taub

    No. 146289 (Mich. Jul. 15, 2014)

    If not, we must next consider whether a § 489 claimant nonetheless has a constitutional right to a jury trial. See Conservation Dep't v Brown, 335 Mich 343, 346; 55 NW2d 859 (1952). We examine the statute first because, depending on our resolution of the statutory issue, we may not need to reach the constitutional question.

  2. Madugula v. Taub

    496 Mich. 685 (Mich. 2014)   Cited 80 times
    Holding that the defendant was not entitled to a jury trial for an action brought under the Business Corporation Act for alleged violations of the shareholder-oppression provisions of the act, even though the statute also provided for damages as a remedy

    If not, we must next consider whether a § 489 claimant nonetheless has a constitutional right to a jury trial. See Conservation Dep't v. Brown, 335 Mich. 343, 346, 55 N.W.2d 859 (1952). We examine the statute first because, depending on our resolution of the statutory issue, we may not need to reach the constitutional question.

  3. Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. Morley

    314 Mich. App. 306 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 25 times
    In Dep't of Environmental Quality v. Morley, 314 Mich.App. 306, 308 n. 1, 885 N.W.2d 892 (2016), this Court noted that "Part 303 was repealed by 98 PA 2013."

    The Michigan Constitution provides that the “right of trial by jury shall remain....” Const. 1963, art. 1, § 14. “Thus the right to trial by jury is preserved in all cases where it existed prior to adoption of the Constitution.” Conservation Dep't v. Brown, 335 Mich. 343, 346, 55 N.W.2d 859 (1952). Further, the “constitutional guaranty applies to cases arising under statutes enacted subsequent to adoption of the Constitution, which are similar in character to cases in which the right to jury trial existed before the Constitution was adopted.”

  4. Freissler v. State Highway Comm

    53 Mich. App. 530 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 12 times
    In Freissler v State Highway Comm, 53 Mich. App. 530, 535-536; 220 N.W.2d 141 (1974), lv den 393 Mich. 757 (1974), this Court held that a litigant does not have a fundamental right to a jury trial in the Court of Claims under the state constitution.

    " Conservation Department v Brown, 335 Mich. 343, 346; 55 N.W.2d 859 (1952), noted that the right to jury trial in Michigan has been "preserved in all cases where it existed prior to the adoption" of the above-mentioned provisions of the Michigan Constitutions. As indicated in Hastings, supra, there was no common-law right to maintain an action against the state, and consequently there was no common-law right to a jury trial in such instances.

  5. McCormick v. Carrier

    487 Mich. 180 (Mich. 2010)   Cited 380 times
    Determining that the plaintiff must present evidence of "actual symptoms or conditions that someone other than the injured person would observe or perceive as impairing a body function"

    And, of course, the scope of the rules governing summary disposition are also supported — if not compelled — by the right to a jury trial in civil cases. See, generally, Conservation Dep't v Brown, 335 Mich 343, 346-347; 55 NW2d 859 (1952), and Dunn v Dunn, 11 Mich 284, 286 (1863). Accord Byrd v Blue Ridge Rural Electric Coop, Inc, 356 US 525, 537-538; 78 S Ct 893; 2 L Ed 2d 953 (1958).

  6. Wayne Co. v. Hathcock

    471 Mich. 445 (Mich. 2004)   Cited 125 times
    Holding that an appellate decision had retroactive effect where it applied "fundamental constitutional principles" and returned the law "to that which existed before" a decision being overruled

    Previously, in 1952, this Court took a much more straightforward approach to the same phrase when trying to determine whether a particular statute provided for a right to a trial by jury. Conservation Dep't v. Brown, 335 Mich 343, 346; 55 NW2d 859 (1952). The Court stated, "The statute under which these . . . proceedings were brought is silent on the subject of a jury.

  7. Phillips v. Mirac, Inc.

    470 Mich. 415 (Mich. 2004)   Cited 91 times
    Concluding statute limiting vicarious liability for lessors of automobiles was rationally related to legitimate governmental interest

    We thus must look for the meaning of "the right of trial by jury" before 1963, as understood by those learned in the law at the time. See Conservation Dep't. v. Brown, 335 Mich 343, 346; 55 NW2d 859 (1952). Considerable insight into this scope of this right, both historically and as it was understood in the first half of the twentieth century, is provided in the encyclopedic article on this issue in the 1918 Harvard Law Review by Harvard Law professor Austin Wakeman Scott, Trial by jury and the reform of civil procedure, 31 Harv L R 669 (1918).

  8. Anzaldua v. Band

    457 Mich. 530 (Mich. 1998)   Cited 41 times
    In Anzaldua, we held that the Legislature intended to create an exception to sovereign immunity from liability in the Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA), because it included the state among the bodies subject to the act.

    E Defendants argue that the Court of Appeals constitutional conclusion is contrary to Conservation Dep't v. Brown, 335 Mich. 343; 55 N.W.2d 859 (1952). In Brown, this Court held that trial by jury was not required by the constitution in a statutorily created in rem forfeiture action brought against the defendant's property under 1948 CL 300.14.

  9. Poet v. Traverse City Osteopathic Hospital

    433 Mich. 228 (Mich. 1989)   Cited 33 times
    In Poet, 433 Mich at 240, our Supreme Court established a legal test that could be used "to uniformly determine when a trial court's error in overruling a challenge for cause requires reversal[.]"

    The right to trial by jury is preserved in all cases where it existed prior to the adoption of the constitution. Friedman v Dozowc, 412 Mich. 1, 60; 312 N.W.2d 585 (1981), citing Conservation Dep't v Brown, 335 Mich. 343; 55 N.W.2d 859 (1952). [f]airness to the parties litigant demands that the jury should be free from bias and prejudice in all cases, and that they enter upon the trial of the cases with the single desire and purpose of doing equal and exact justice between the parties, and that according to the law and the evidence given them in open court. . . . [ Theisen v Johns, 72 Mich. 285, 292; 40 N.W. 727 (1888), citing Monaghan v Agricultural Fire Ins Co, 53 Mich. 238, 246; 18 N.W. 797 (1884).]

  10. Friedman v. Dozorc

    412 Mich. 1 (Mich. 1981)   Cited 271 times
    Holding that "an attorney owes no duty of care to an adverse party in litigation"

    Const 1963, art 1, § 14, preserves the right of jury trial only in causes of action which were part of the common law prior to its adoption. See Conservation Dep't v Brown, 335 Mich. 343, 346; 55 N.W.2d 859 (1952). The procedure suggested here would not involve a cause of action in the usual sense of that term, and certainly not one predating the Michigan Constitution.