green
Positive treatment
11.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Duncan v. State
(2×)
Id. at 1014 n 4, quoting Duncan III, 486 Mich at 1071 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher Lee Duncan v. State of Michigan
The majority permits this case to continue without providing any guidance to 4 In a statement that Justice YOUNG and I joined, Justice MARKMAN previously set forth that the April 30, 2010 order was erroneous for the reason that “it is not premature to decide this case because the precise issue presented is whether plaintiffs have stated a claim on which relief can be granted, and this, as well as the threshold justiciability issues, can be determined on the face of the complaint.” Duncan, 486 Mich at 1071 (MARKMAN, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher Lee Duncan v. State of Michigan
(2×)
If the dissenters’ concerns are genuine, why would not the proper remedy be to grant reconsideration and issue an opinion or order setting such a standard? 1 See, e.g., Andres v Brown, 482 Mich 985 (2008) (affirming the result reached by the Court of Appeals for different reasons); Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v Secretary of State, 482 Mich 960 (2008) (affirming the result only of the Court of Appeals judgment without further explanation). 2 See Duncan v State of Michigan, 486 Mich 1071, 1074 (2010) (KELLY, C.J., dissenting). 3 Finally, Justice CORRIGAN states that issuing o…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher Lee Duncan v. State of Michigan
Id. at 380-385 . (10) The Court of Appeals has “issued an open invitation to the trial court to assume ongoing operational control over the systems for providing defense counsel to indigent criminal defendants in Berrien, Genesee and Muskegon counties.” And with that invitation comes a “blank check” on the part of the judiciary to “force sufficient state level legislative appropriations and executive branch acquiescence” in assuming similar control over the systems in every county in this state, while “nullifying the provisions” of the criminal defense act and “superseding th…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Oakland County v. Department of Human Services
The continued viability of this holding is in question, however, given the Supreme Court’s reversal “for the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion.” Duncan, 486 Mich at 1071.
discussed
Cited "see"
Kuren v. Luzerne County
See Duncan v. State, 486 Mich. 1071 , 784 N.W.2d 51 (2010), In that order, the Michigan Supreme Court noted briefly that the reversal was based upon the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion from the Court of Appeals.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Anglers of the Ausable Inc v. Dept of Environmental Quality
See, e.g., Duncan v State, 486 Mich 1071 , 1074 (2010) (MARILYN KELLY, C.J., dissenting); McCormick v Carrier, 485 Mich 851 -852 (2009) (WEAVER, J., concurring); Univ of Michigan Regents v Titan Ins Co, 484 Mich 852, 853-854 (2009) (YOUNG, J., dissenting); United States 9 Apparently, some members of the majority are now willing to rely merely on the ever- changing nature of the Au Sable River as reason to reverse course, contrary to their previous statements.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re CW, BW, and DW, Minors. CW, BW, and DW, Appellees, and Valeriu Martin and Karen Martin, Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
Department of Human Services, Respondent-Appellee.
v.
Department of Human Services, Respondent-Appellee.
140841.
Michigan Supreme Court.
Jul 16, 2010.
Cited by 14 opinions | Published
Order
By order of May 12, 2010, respondent Department of Human Services was directed to answer the application for leave to appeal the February 16, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the motions for extension of time to answer and for leave to file brief amicus curiae are GRANTED. The answer having been received, as well as a statement from the children's lawyer-guardian ad litem, the application for leave to appeal is again considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.