People v. Oliver, 675 N.W.2d 40 (Mich. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Oliver, 675 N.W.2d 40 (Mich. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“statute that grants power to an administrative agency must be strictly construed and the administrative authority drawn from such statute must be granted plainly, because doubtful power does not exist.”
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Herrick District Library v. Library of Michigan (michctapp, 2011-08-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Herrick District Library v. Library of Michigan
Mich. Ct. App. · 2011 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
statute that grants power to an administrative agency must be strictly construed and the administrative authority drawn from such statute must be granted plainly, because doubtful power does not exist.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Tito OLIVER, Defendant-Appellant.
124493, COA No. 248940.
Michigan Supreme Court.
Feb 27, 2004.
675 N.W.2d 40
Marilyn J. Kelly.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 69%
Citer courts: Michigan Court of Appeals (1)

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 1, 2003 order 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.

MARILYN J. KELLY, J., dissents and states as follows:

Defendant pleaded no contest for his role in an armed robbery at a home. His sentence was enhanced because the victims were terrorized. However, defendant never entered the home or dealt personally with the victims, so he could not have engaged in terrorization.

One of the primary objectives of our sentencing guidelines is to impose greater punishment on the more culpable parties. Defendant is less culpable than his accomplices. However, the accomplices each received a lesser sentence than defendant did. Defendant's sentence erroneously reflected that he had engaged in terrorization. Because this error undermines the objectives of the sentencing guidelines and has prejudiced defendant, I would remand for resentencing.