Legal Opinion
Rule v. City of Bay City
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided April 6, 1972No. 5 December Term 1971, Docket No. 53,280PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Per curiam
In its opinion reversing and remanding for new trial, the Court of Appeals noted that by its decision in Howard v Melvindale, 27 Mich App 227 (1970) it had limited the application of the “two-inch rule” to surfaces or objects which are “designed to be walked upon”.
That was indeed a step in the right direction, but for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Adams in his dissent in Harris v Detroit, 367 Mich 526, 529 (1962), we do not regard it as desirable to continue to enforce the “two-inch rule”.
Accordingly we take this opportunity to advise the Bench and Bar that hereafter we will no longer…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Schedlbauer v. Chris-Craft Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1968
- Harris v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1962
- Baldinger v. Ann Arbor RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1964
- Perkins v. Township of DelawareMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Howard v. City of MelvindaleMichigan Court of Appeals · 1970
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Robinson v. City of LansingMichigan Supreme Court · 2010
- Glancy v. City of RosevilleMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
- Ellsworth v. Hotel Corp. of AmericaMichigan Court of Appeals · 1999
- Glancy v. City of RosevilleMichigan Court of Appeals · 1996
- Robinson v. City of DetroitMichigan Court of Appeals · 1998
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.