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 2015–2016 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. Coopergreen2 sentences2016See People v Cooper, 236 Mich App 643, 658 ; 601 NW2d 409 (1999). 2016See People v Cooper, 236 Mich App 643, 658 ; 601 NW2d 409 (1999). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Giogliogreen1 sentence2016From our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in “affirmatively entertaining the range of possible reasons" supported by the available evidence that counsel may have had for proceeding as he did, and in concluding that defense counsel’s conduct fell within the range of reasonable professional conduct “in light of all the circumstances.” See Gioglio, 296 Mich App at 22-23 (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 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. Shahideh
green
1 sentence2016As noted, defense counsel’s duty is to investigate all potentially viable defenses and to present all substantial defenses, Shahideh, 277 Mich App at 118 , and although a defendant “may advance inconsistent claims and defenses,” People v Cross, 187 Mich App 204, 205-206 ; 466 NW2d 368 (1991), the decision to argue one defense over another is considered a matter of trial strategy. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Cross
green
2 sentences2016As noted, defense counsel’s duty is to investigate all potentially viable defenses and to present all substantial defenses, Shahideh, 277 Mich App at 118 , and although a defendant “may advance inconsistent claims and defenses,” People v Cross, 187 Mich App 204, 205-206 ; 466 NW2d 368 (1991), the decision to argue one defense over another is considered a matter of trial strategy. 2016As noted, defense counsel’s duty is to investigate all potentially viable defenses and to present all substantial defenses, Shahideh, 277 Mich App at 118 , and although a defendant “may advance inconsistent claims and defenses,” People v Cross, 187 Mich App 204, 205-206 ; 466 NW2d 368 (1991), the decision to argue one defense over another is considered a matter of trial strategy. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Nix v. Whiteside
green
2 sentences2016Counsel’s “duty to advocate the defendant’s cause . . . is limited to legitimate, lawful conduct”; counsel may not assist the defendant “in presenting false evidence or otherwise violating the law.” Nix v Whiteside, 475 US 157 , 166: 106 S Ct 988 ; 89 L Ed 2d 123 (1986). 2016Counsel’s “duty to advocate the defendant’s cause . . . is limited to legitimate, lawful conduct”; counsel may not assist the defendant “in presenting false evidence or otherwise violating the law.” Nix v Whiteside, 475 US 157 , 166: 106 S Ct 988 ; 89 L Ed 2d 123 (1986). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Norman
green
2 sentences2015“Critical decisions are made by the Department of Corrections regarding a defendant’s status based on the information contained in the presentence investigation report.” People v Norman, 148 Mich App 273, 275 ; 384 NW2d 147 (1986). 2015“Critical decisions are made by the Department of Corrections regarding a defendant’s status based on the information contained in the presentence investigation report.” People v Norman, 148 Mich App 273, 275 ; 384 NW2d 147 (1986). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.