case without hearing (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

case without hearing in Michigan

5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1896–2018 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State Highway Commission v. Redmongreen
michctapp · 1972 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000Id.; See also State Hwy Comm v Redmon, 42 Mich App 642, 646 ; 202 NW2d 527 (1972) (“[CJounsel cannot sit idly by and then for the first time interpose objections at trial.”).

2000Id.; See also State Hwy Comm v Redmon, 42 Mich App 642, 646 ; 202 NW2d 527 (1972) (“[CJounsel cannot sit idly by and then for the first time interpose objections at trial.”).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Kemerko Clawson, LLC v. RXIV Inc. green
michctapp · 2006
2 sentences

2018However, in Kemerko Clawson LLC v RxIV Inc, 269 Mich App 347, 349 ; 711 NW2d 801 (2005), this Court stated that MCR 2.401(B)(2) provides that “a trial court ‘shall establish times for events the court deems appropriate, including . . . (ii) the amendment of pleadings, adding of parties, or filing of motions . . . .’ Under this rule, the trial court has the discretion to decline to entertain motions beyond the stated deadline.” It follows that the trial court would have the discretion to decline to entertain an untimely response to a motion.

2018However, in Kemerko Clawson LLC v RxIV Inc, 269 Mich App 347, 349 ; 711 NW2d 801 (2005), this Court stated that MCR 2.401(B)(2) provides that “a trial court ‘shall establish times for events the court deems appropriate, including . . . (ii) the amendment of pleadings, adding of parties, or filing of motions . . . .’ Under this rule, the trial court has the discretion to decline to entertain motions beyond the stated deadline.” It follows that the trial court would have the discretion to decline to entertain an untimely response to a motion.

22018–2018
People v. Gage green
mich · 1886
1 sentence

1970It was therefore error to permit her father, mother, and sister to state the circumstances of the commission of the crime as detailed to them by her.” If it were not for later Michigan cases, we would hold that Michigan in fact had created two exceptions to the hearsay rule for statements of this nature, despite the language of People v. Gage, supra. However, in People v. Corder (1928), 244 Mich 274 , the Court divided evenly upon the question of the admissibility of the details of complaints for statutory rape.

11970–1970
People v. Corder green
mich · 1928
1 sentence

1970It was therefore error to permit her father, mother, and sister to state the circumstances of the commission of the crime as detailed to them by her.” If it were not for later Michigan cases, we would hold that Michigan in fact had created two exceptions to the hearsay rule for statements of this nature, despite the language of People v. Gage, supra. However, in People v. Corder (1928), 244 Mich 274 , the Court divided evenly upon the question of the admissibility of the details of complaints for statutory rape.

11970–1970
Heaton v. Edwards neutral
mich · 1892
1 sentence

1896The case is within the rule of Heaton v. Edwards, 90 Mich. 500 , unless the fact that the other lands, which plaintiff was not authorized to sell, were included in the sale, takes this case without the rule of that case.

11896–1896

Where else courts name it

TX 10 (1929–2024) AL 10 (1870–1996) CA 9 (1932–2011) SC 6 (1903–2018) MI 5 (1896–2018) NY 5 (1895–1912) IN 4 (1910–2020) WA 4 (1932–2024) MO 4 (1936–1993) PA 3 (1930–2015) TN 3 (1929–2024) UT 3 (2007–2013) NM 3 (1996–2021) GA 3 (1930–1983) VT 3 (1984–2015) KS 2 (1911–1986) IL 2 (1906–1966) MT 2 (1956–2025) FL 2 (1983–1990) OH 2 (2016–2022) OK 2 (1992–2013) MA 2 (1922–1925)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check