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 1 courts 2019–2023 3 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. Brodengreen2 sentences2023See People v Broden, 428 Mich 343, 354, n 18 , 408 NW2d 789 (1987). 2023See People v Broden, 428 Mich 343, 354, n 18 , 408 NW2d 789 (1987). | 3 | 3 |
Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Secretary of Stategreen2 sentences2019“Those who suggest that the meaning to be given a provision of our constitution varies from a natural reading of the constitutional text bear the burden of providing the evidence that the ratifiers subscribed to such an alternative construction.” Michigan United Conservation Clubs v Secretary of State (After Remand), 464 Mich 359, 376 (2001) (YOUNG, J., concurring). 2019“Those who suggest that the meaning to be given a provision of our constitution varies from a natural reading of the constitutional text bear the burden of providing the evidence that the ratifiers subscribed to such an alternative construction.” Michigan United Conservation Clubs v Secretary of State (After Remand), 464 Mich 359, 376 (2001) (YOUNG, J., concurring). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Milbourn
red
2 sentences2023I also agree with most of Chief Justice CLEMENT’s analysis of Steanhouse and her conclusion that the “or adheres to” language that was quoted from People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 661 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), does not compel the conclusion that MCL 769.34(10) has already necessarily been rendered inoperable. 2 While Milbourn noted the 2 The full passage from Milbourn that the lead opinion relies on, and that Steanhouse readopted, stated as follows: Conceivably, even a sentence within the sentencing guidelines could be an abuse of discretion in unusual circumstances. 2023I also agree with most of Chief Justice CLEMENT’s analysis of Steanhouse and her conclusion that the “or adheres to” language that was quoted from People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 661 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), does not compel the conclusion that MCL 769.34(10) has already necessarily been rendered inoperable. 2 While Milbourn noted the 2 The full passage from Milbourn that the lead opinion relies on, and that Steanhouse readopted, stated as follows: Conceivably, even a sentence within the sentencing guidelines could be an abuse of discretion in unusual circumstances. | 3 | 2023–2023 |
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.