In Re Church
Mich.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
★Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 77 decisions
77
Citing decisions
6+
Courts citing
Citations by decade
8
41
28
2000s2010s2020s
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Lambrecht Real Estate Limited Partnership vs Edward F. Lambrecht, Jr., Edward F. Lambrecht III; Eastgate Village, LLC; Arbor Forest Apartments, LLC and Lakewood Hills, LLC Mich. Cir. Ct.
- 2026EBF Holdings, LLC d/b/a Everest Business Funding vs. European Imports, LLC, Elvis Prendi, and Drini Godo Mich. Cir. Ct.
- 2026GCS Investments, LLC vs All-Cote Coatings Company, LLC and Orietta Ciavaglia Mich. Cir. Ct.
- 2026Hanna Brothers Inc. vs. Jeet Properties, LLC, Jeet Enterprises LLC, and Jeet Singh Mich. Cir. Ct.
- 2025Memberselect Insurance Company v. Dominic Keith Frazer Mich. Ct. App.
- 2025Nathional Senior Insurance Services, Inc. vs David Locke, Beatrice Parr, Jay Horowitz, Horowitz Agency, LLC and Joe Quintero Mich. Cir. Ct.
- 2025America's Back Office, Inc. vs The Regency NYC, Inc., d/b/a The Regency Group and Yosef Loeb and The Regency NYC, Inc., d/b/a The Regency Group vs America's Back Office, Inc. Mich. Cir. Ct.
- 2025Richmond Recycling, Inc. and Commercial Industrial Services, Inc. and CSS Environmental, LLC vs. Duane Jones and DKS Service Inc. Mich. Cir. Ct.
- 2025Slipgrip Car Mounts, LLC vs Jason Anglin, Jason Anglin Agency, Commercial Insurance Group, LLC, United Specialty Insurance Company, Dylen Wilfang, and Access One Eighty, formerly Bigfoot Mich. Cir. Ct.
- 2025Estate of Mary T Syron v. Ford Motor Company Mich. Ct. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
In re Briana CHURCH, Keeley Church, and Michael Church, Minors.
Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
Angela Church, Respondent-Appellant, and
Donald Church, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 11, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.