Legal Opinion · Dissent

Tkachik v. Mandeville

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 27, 2010No. Docket 138460Published

1DissentYoung, J.

Because of the danger of unintended consequences and the difficulty that a court has in assessing them when amending the common law, the Hippocratic admonition to “first do no harm” is a wise prescription for restraint. It is an admonition that the majority today unfortunately ignores. Because the tenets of property law at issue here are among the most settled and uncontroversial in all of our jurisprudence, I vigorously dissent from the majority’s sweeping modification of the common law in this case.1

Under the banner of equity, the majority today creates a rule that renders Michigan the one…

2Cases cited54 opinions

  1. Hummel v. HummelOhio Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Twin City Pipe Line Co. v. Harding Glass Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
  3. Caldwell v. FoxMichigan Supreme Court · 1975
  4. O'Donnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Estes v. TitusMichigan Supreme Court · 2008

49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API