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 1976–1978 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. Allensworthgreen2 sentences1978See People v Allensworth, 401 Mich 67, 75 ; 257 NW2d 81 (1977) (COLEMAN, J., dissenting). 1978See People v Allensworth, 401 Mich 67, 75 ; 257 NW2d 81 (1977) (COLEMAN, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Podolskigreen2 sentences1977An indication that the Utter, Treichel, and Andrus cases do not abolish the common law felony-murder doctrine may be found in People v Podolski, 332 Mich 508 ; 52 NW2d 201 (1952). 1977An indication that the Utter, Treichel, and Andrus cases do not abolish the common law felony-murder doctrine may be found in People v Podolski, 332 Mich 508 ; 52 NW2d 201 (1952). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pottergreen1 sentence1976The early cases indicate that such a doctrine did exist in Michigan. "[A]t the common law, if a mortal blow was malicious, although not given with intent to kill, or if death ensued from an act accompanying an unlawful collateral act * * * the killing would be murder, and would be punishable in the same manner as though perpetrated with the deliberate design of taking the life of the victim.” People v Potter, supra, at 7. | 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. Carter
green
2 sentences1978Specifically, the Fountain opinion states at 504: "Finally, in People v Carter, 387 Mich 397 ; 197 NW2d 57 (1972), the Michigan Supreme Court rejects the common law felony-murder doctrine explicitly.” However, the Carter case involved two felonies, robbery and kidnapping. 1978Specifically, the Fountain opinion states at 504: "Finally, in People v Carter, 387 Mich 397 ; 197 NW2d 57 (1972), the Michigan Supreme Court rejects the common law felony-murder doctrine explicitly.” However, the Carter case involved two felonies, robbery and kidnapping. | 2 | 1976–1978 |
People v. Fountain
green
2 sentences1978That question has divided this Court since the issuance of the opinion in People v Fountain, 71 Mich App 491, 505-506 ; 248 NW2d 589 (1976), in which it was concluded that "Michigan has neither a statutory felony-murder doctrine nor a common law felony-murder doctrine”, and that "Malice is not, in this state, imputed to an act of killing from the intent to commit an underlying felony”. 1978That question has divided this Court since the issuance of the opinion in People v Fountain, 71 Mich App 491, 505-506 ; 248 NW2d 589 (1976), in which it was concluded that "Michigan has neither a statutory felony-murder doctrine nor a common law felony-murder doctrine”, and that "Malice is not, in this state, imputed to an act of killing from the intent to commit an underlying felony”. | 2 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Till
green
2 sentences1978In People v Till, 80 Mich App 16 ; 263 NW2d 586 (1977), this Court in a split decision rejected the Fountain rationale and concluded that a felony-murder rule does exist in this state. 1978In People v Till, 80 Mich App 16 ; 263 NW2d 586 (1977), this Court in a split decision rejected the Fountain rationale and concluded that a felony-murder rule does exist in this state. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Commonwealth v. Moyer
green
2 sentences1977Although acknowledging our freedom to differ with the Pennsylvania courts, the majority cites People v Podolski, 332 Mich 508 ; 52 NW2d 201 (1952), and the Podolski Court’s "approving” reference to Commonwealth v Moyer, 357 Pa 181; 53 A2d 736 (1947), to suggest that the decisional authority for Fountain (i.e., the Utter-Treichel-Andrus trilogy 1 ) did not portend the abolition of a common law felony-murder rule in Michigan. 1977Although acknowledging our freedom to differ *40 with the Pennsylvania courts, the majority cites People v Podolski, 332 Mich 508 ; 52 NW2d 201 (1952), and the Podolski Court's "approving" reference to Commonwealth v Moyer, 357 Pa 181; 53 A2d 736 (1947), to suggest that the decisional authority for Fountain (i.e., the Utter-Treichel-Andrus trilogy [1] ) did not portend the abolition of a common law felony-murder rule in Michigan. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.