citation warning (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

citation warning in Michigan

5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2018 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
United States v. Brighamgreen
ca5 · 2003 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005United States v Williams, 271 F3d 1262, 1267 (CA 10, 2001). 10 Specifically, an officer may ask about the “purpose and itinerary of a driver’s trip during the traffic stop” in order to determine whether a “violation has taken place, and if so, whether a citation or warning should be issued or an arrest made.” United States v Brigham, 382 F3d 500, 508 (CA 5, 2004).

2005United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d 1262, 1267 (C.A.10, 2001). [10] Specifically, an officer may ask about the "purpose and itinerary of a driver's trip during the traffic stop" in order to determine whether a "violation has taken place, and if so, whether a citation or warning should be issued or an arrest made." United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 508 (C.A.5, 2004).

11
United States v. Williamsgreen
ca10 · 2001 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005United States v Williams, 271 F3d 1262, 1267 (CA 10, 2001). 10 Specifically, an officer may ask about the “purpose and itinerary of a driver’s trip during the traffic stop” in order to determine whether a “violation has taken place, and if so, whether a citation or warning should be issued or an arrest made.” United States v Brigham, 382 F3d 500, 508 (CA 5, 2004).

2005United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d 1262, 1267 (C.A.10, 2001). [10] Specifically, an officer may ask about the "purpose and itinerary of a driver's trip during the traffic stop" in order to determine whether a "violation has taken place, and if so, whether a citation or warning should be issued or an arrest made." United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 508 (C.A.5, 2004).

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Musser green
mich · 2013
2 sentences

2018Our Supreme Court has made clear that “it is improper for a witness or an expert to comment or provide an opinion on the credibility of another person while testifying at trial” because “[s]uch comments have no probative value” and “do nothing to assist the jury in assessing witness credibility in its fact-finding mission and in determining the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence.” People v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 349 ; 835 NW2d 319 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2018Our Supreme Court has made clear that “it is improper for a witness or an expert to comment or provide an opinion on the credibility of another person while testifying at trial” because “[s]uch comments have no probative value” and “do nothing to assist the jury in assessing witness credibility in its fact-finding mission and in determining the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence.” People v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 349 ; 835 NW2d 319 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

22018–2018
Alco Universal Inc. v. City of Flint green
mich · 1971
2 sentences

1990Miller v Fabius Twp Bd, n 41, supra, pp 257, 259. [43] See Alco Universal Inc v City of Flint, 386 Mich 359 ; 192 NW2d 247 (1971) (home rule government is based on the theory that local governments are in the best position to assess needs and desires of a community). [44] The ordinance prohibited the "storage of fireworks in a place of retail sales ... to a gross weight of less than one hundred pounds." [45] The plaintiff never conceded, as the 36th District Court noted, that "there is no question but these were class [C] fireworks which were stored on [defendant's] premises" when he was issue

1990Miller v Fabius Twp Bd, n 41, supra, pp 257, 259. [43] See Alco Universal Inc v City of Flint, 386 Mich 359 ; 192 NW2d 247 (1971) (home rule government is based on the theory that local governments are in the best position to assess needs and desires of a community). [44] The ordinance prohibited the "storage of fireworks in a place of retail sales ... to a gross weight of less than one hundred pounds." [45] The plaintiff never conceded, as the 36th District Court noted, that "there is no question but these were class [C] fireworks which were stored on [defendant's] premises" when he was issue

11990–1990
People v. Smyers neutral
michctapp · 1973
2 sentences

1975People v Smyers, 47 Mich App 61 ; *139 209 NW2d 281 (1973).

1975People v Smyers, 47 Mich App 61 ; *139 209 NW2d 281 (1973).

11975–1975

Where else courts name it

OH 33 (2003–2026) TX 33 (1873–2025) MD 23 (1995–2020) IL 23 (1966–2026) AR 22 (2001–2026) CA 21 (1960–2026) PA 19 (1974–2025) LA 16 (2001–2022) GA 14 (1997–2024) FL 13 (1993–2023) IA 11 (2008–2025) WY 11 (2000–2021) AL 10 (1976–2018) OR 9 (1978–2026) MO 9 (1913–2009) WA 7 (1951–2015) TN 7 (1997–2022) DE 7 (2001–2021) MA 6 (1970–2018) MI 5 (1975–2018) CT 5 (1991–2022) NY 5 (1895–2017) SD 5 (1996–2013) KS 4 (1944–2025) VA 4 (2005–2016) AZ 3 (1976–2015) SC 3 (2005–2018) AK 2 (2005–2008) ND 2 (2005–2021) HI 2 (1997–2014) UT 2 (2013–2017) DC 2 (1985–2026) VT 2 (2000–2002) IN 2 (2017–2023) KY 2 (2025–2025) MN 2 (1996–2015)

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