Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Heftgreen1 sentence2018See Heft, 299 Mich App at 83 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rodgersgreen2 sentences2012People v Gould, 384 Mich 71, 80 ; 179 NW2d 617 (1970); See People v Rodgers, 248 Mich App 702, 712-713 ; 645 NW2d 294 (2001) (noting that for purposes of an armed robbery analysis, the court must consider whether an employee had a greater right to the property than the defendant). 2012People v Gould, 384 Mich 71, 80 ; 179 NW2d 617 (1970); See People v Rodgers, 248 Mich App 702, 712-713 ; 645 NW2d 294 (2001) (noting that for purposes of an armed robbery analysis, the court must consider whether an employee had a greater right to the property than the defendant). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lee
green
2 sentences2017Again, the requirement of specific intent under the armed robbery statute pertains to a defendant’s intent to permanently deprive the owner of property, Lee, 243 Mich App at 168 ; it does not require a defendant to specifically intend to represent, orally or otherwise, that he possessed a dangerous weapon during the offense. 2017Again, the requirement of specific intent under the armed robbery statute pertains to a defendant’s intent to permanently deprive the owner of property, Lee, 243 Mich App at 168 ; it does not require a defendant to specifically intend to represent, orally or otherwise, that he possessed a dangerous weapon during the offense. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Ericksen
green
2 sentences2012People v Tombs, 472 Mich 446, 459 ; 697 NW2d 494 (2005); People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 196 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010). 2012People v Tombs, 472 Mich 446, 459 ; 697 NW2d 494 (2005); People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 196 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Gould
green
2 sentences2012People v Gould, 384 Mich 71, 80 ; 179 NW2d 617 (1970); See People v Rodgers, 248 Mich App 702, 712-713 ; 645 NW2d 294 (2001) (noting that for purposes of an armed robbery analysis, the court must consider whether an employee had a greater right to the property than the defendant). 2012People v Gould, 384 Mich 71, 80 ; 179 NW2d 617 (1970); See People v Rodgers, 248 Mich App 702, 712-713 ; 645 NW2d 294 (2001) (noting that for purposes of an armed robbery analysis, the court must consider whether an employee had a greater right to the property than the defendant). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Tombs
green
2 sentences2012People v Tombs, 472 Mich 446, 459 ; 697 NW2d 494 (2005); People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 196 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010). 2012People v Tombs, 472 Mich 446, 459 ; 697 NW2d 494 (2005); People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 196 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Spillman
green
2 sentences1976The Court of Appeals reversed both these convictions holding that the admission of testimony that defendant had committed a prior armed robbery was error. 63 Mich App 256 ; 234 NW2d 475 (1975). 1976The Court of Appeals reversed both these convictions holding that the admission of testimony that defendant had committed a prior armed robbery was error. 63 Mich App 256 ; 234 NW2d 475 (1975). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.