Harrison v. Metz
Cases that cite this one
33 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- People v. Russo (Mich. 1992)
- White v. General Motors Corp. (Mich. 1988)
- Spoon-Shacket Co. v. County of Oakland (Mich. 1959)
- Rushton v. Schram (6th Cir. 1944)
- McKisson v. Davenport (Mich. 1890)
- Phillips v. Township of New Buffalo (Mich. 1888)
- Jennifer Buhl v. City of Oak Park (Mich. 2021)
- Jennifer Buhl v. City of Oak Park (Mich. 2021)
- Board of Trustees of the City of Pontiac v. City of Pontiac (Mich. 2018)
- Davis v. State Employees' Retirement Board (Mich. Ct. App. 2006)
- In re Africo Explorations, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas 1992)
- People v. Russo (Mich. Ct. App. 1990)
- Wayne County Rural Taxpayers Ass'n v. Wayne County Drain Commissioner (Mich. 1963)
- Bullinger v. Gremore (Mich. 1955)
- Tarnow v. Railway Express Agency (Mich. 1951)
- Barber v. Barber (Mich. 1950)
- Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission (Mich. 1946)
- Ramey v. Michigan Public Service Commission (Mich. 1941)
- Austin v. Anderson (Mich. 1937)
- In re Debancourt's Estate (Mich. 1937)
- DesNoyer v. Salvation Army (Mich. 1937)
- Maricopa County v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (Ariz. 1934)
- Bonfils v. Public Utilities Commission (Colo. 1920)
- McBride v. Chippewa Circuit Judge (Mich. 1918)
- Board of Supervisors v. Board of Supervisors (Mich. 1909)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We have no doubt that the legislature intended the act in question — Sess. L. 1867, p. 89 — -to affect only the causes of action which should accrue subsequent to its taking effect as law. There is nothing in-the act itself from which we can gather any different intent, and it is a sound rule of construction that legislation is to have a prospective operation only, except where the contrary intent is expressly declared or is necessarily to be implied from the terms employed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.