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 1968–2018 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2018In comparison to the Mosley rule that allows police to re-approach a suspect who has invoked the right to remain silent, a suspect in custody who has expressed “his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Edwards v Arizona, 451 US 477, 484-485 ; 101 S Ct 1880 ; 68 L Ed 2d 378 (1981). 2018In comparison to the Mosley rule that allows police to re-approach a suspect who has invoked the right to remain silent, a suspect in custody who has expressed “his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Edwards v Arizona, 451 US 477, 484-485 ; 101 S Ct 1880 ; 68 L Ed 2d 378 (1981). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Smith v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2018“In the absence of such a bright-line prohibition, the authorities through badger[ing] or overreaching—explicit or subtle, deliberate or unintentional—might otherwise wear down the accused and persuade him to incriminate himself notwithstanding his earlier request for counsel’s assistance.” Smith v Illinois, 469 US 91, 98 ; 105 S Ct 490 ; 83 L Ed 2d 488 (1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2018“In the absence of such a bright-line prohibition, the authorities through badger[ing] or overreaching—explicit or subtle, deliberate or unintentional—might otherwise wear down the accused and persuade him to incriminate himself notwithstanding his earlier request for counsel’s assistance.” Smith v Illinois, 469 US 91, 98 ; 105 S Ct 490 ; 83 L Ed 2d 488 (1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Mosley
green
2 sentences1974Although People v Mosley, supra, may be under some question by reason of the statement of the majority of the Court in the case of People v France, 370 Mich 156 ; 121 NW2d 476 (1963), of an inclination to reexamine the Mosley rule, "under a proper record”, we do now, as previously in People v Roney, 7 Mich App 678 ; 153 NW2d 175 (1967), and People v Linscott, 14 Mich App 334 ; 165 NW2d 514 (1968), rule that we have no basis for proceeding on the assumption that People v Mosley, supra, and cases therein cited are not still controlling authority. 1974Although People v Mosley, supra, may be under some question by reason of the statement of the majority of the Court in the case of People v France, 370 Mich 156 ; 121 NW2d 476 (1963), of an inclination to reexamine the Mosley rule, "under a proper record”, we do now, as previously in People v Roney, 7 Mich App 678 ; 153 NW2d 175 (1967), and People v Linscott, 14 Mich App 334 ; 165 NW2d 514 (1968), rule that we have no basis for proceeding on the assumption that People v Mosley, supra, and cases therein cited are not still controlling authority. | 2 | 1968–1974 |
People v. France
neutral
2 sentences1974Although People v Mosley, supra, may be under some question by reason of the statement of the majority of the Court in the case of People v France, 370 Mich 156 ; 121 NW2d 476 (1963), of an inclination to reexamine the Mosley rule, "under a proper record”, we do now, as previously in People v Roney, 7 Mich App 678 ; 153 NW2d 175 (1967), and People v Linscott, 14 Mich App 334 ; 165 NW2d 514 (1968), rule that we have no basis for proceeding on the assumption that People v Mosley, supra, and cases therein cited are not still controlling authority. 1974Although People v Mosley, supra, may be under some question by reason of the statement of the majority of the Court in the case of People v France, 370 Mich 156 ; 121 NW2d 476 (1963), of an inclination to reexamine the Mosley rule, "under a proper record”, we do now, as previously in People v Roney, 7 Mich App 678 ; 153 NW2d 175 (1967), and People v Linscott, 14 Mich App 334 ; 165 NW2d 514 (1968), rule that we have no basis for proceeding on the assumption that People v Mosley, supra, and cases therein cited are not still controlling authority. | 2 | 1968–1974 |
People v. Roney
green
2 sentences1974Although People v Mosley, supra, may be under some question by reason of the statement of the majority of the Court in the case of People v France, 370 Mich 156 ; 121 NW2d 476 (1963), of an inclination to reexamine the Mosley rule, "under a proper record”, we do now, as previously in People v Roney, 7 Mich App 678 ; 153 NW2d 175 (1967), and People v Linscott, 14 Mich App 334 ; 165 NW2d 514 (1968), rule that we have no basis for proceeding on the assumption that People v Mosley, supra, and cases therein cited are not still controlling authority. 1974Although People v Mosley, supra, may be under some question by reason of the statement of the majority of the Court in the case of People v France, 370 Mich 156 ; 121 NW2d 476 (1963), of an inclination to reexamine the Mosley rule, "under a proper record”, we do now, as previously in People v Roney, 7 Mich App 678 ; 153 NW2d 175 (1967), and People v Linscott, 14 Mich App 334 ; 165 NW2d 514 (1968), rule that we have no basis for proceeding on the assumption that People v Mosley, supra, and cases therein cited are not still controlling authority. | 2 | 1968–1974 |
Bruton v. United States
green
2 sentences1990Defendant next argues that during his jury trial an officer made a comment which resulted in a violation of Bruton v United States, 391 US 123 ; 88 S Ct 1620 ; 20 L Ed 2d 476 (1968). 1990Defendant next argues that during his jury trial an officer made a comment which resulted in a violation of Bruton v United States, 391 US 123 ; 88 S Ct 1620 ; 20 L Ed 2d 476 (1968). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Hill
red
2 sentences1974We are also aware that in People v Hill, 44 Mich App 308 ; 205 NW2d 267 (1973), where the facts are almost identical to the instant case, the Court in citing Giordenello v United States, 357 US 480 ; 78 S Ct 1245 ; 2 L Ed 2d 1503 (1958), and Whiteley v Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 US 560 ; 91 S Ct 1031 ; 28 L Ed 2d 306 (1971), to define the Fourth Amendment requirements as to probable cause sufficient to justify the issuance of a warrant, interpreted the Giordenello decision as overruling the long line of Michigan cases preventing a defendant from impeaching the complaint by showing 1974We are also aware that in People v Hill, 44 Mich App 308 ; 205 NW2d 267 (1973), where the facts are almost identical to the instant case, the Court in citing Giordenello v United States, 357 US 480 ; 78 S Ct 1245 ; 2 L Ed 2d 1503 (1958), and Whiteley v Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 US 560 ; 91 S Ct 1031 ; 28 L Ed 2d 306 (1971), to define the Fourth Amendment requirements as to probable cause sufficient to justify the issuance of a warrant, interpreted the Giordenello decision as overruling the long line of Michigan cases preventing a defendant from impeaching the complaint by showing | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Giordenello v. United States
green
2 sentences1974We are also aware that in People v Hill, 44 Mich App 308 ; 205 NW2d 267 (1973), where the facts are almost identical to the instant case, the Court in citing Giordenello v United States, 357 US 480 ; 78 S Ct 1245 ; 2 L Ed 2d 1503 (1958), and Whiteley v Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 US 560 ; 91 S Ct 1031 ; 28 L Ed 2d 306 (1971), to define the Fourth Amendment requirements as to probable cause sufficient to justify the issuance of a warrant, interpreted the Giordenello decision as overruling the long line of Michigan cases preventing a defendant from impeaching the complaint by showing 1974We are also aware that in People v Hill, 44 Mich App 308 ; 205 NW2d 267 (1973), where the facts are almost identical to the instant case, the Court in citing Giordenello v United States, 357 US 480 ; 78 S Ct 1245 ; 2 L Ed 2d 1503 (1958), and Whiteley v Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 US 560 ; 91 S Ct 1031 ; 28 L Ed 2d 306 (1971), to define the Fourth Amendment requirements as to probable cause sufficient to justify the issuance of a warrant, interpreted the Giordenello decision as overruling the long line of Michigan cases preventing a defendant from impeaching the complaint by showing | 1 | 1974–1974 |
People v. Linscott
green
2 sentences1974Although People v Mosley, supra, may be under some question by reason of the statement of the majority of the Court in the case of People v France, 370 Mich 156 ; 121 NW2d 476 (1963), of an inclination to reexamine the Mosley rule, "under a proper record”, we do now, as previously in People v Roney, 7 Mich App 678 ; 153 NW2d 175 (1967), and People v Linscott, 14 Mich App 334 ; 165 NW2d 514 (1968), rule that we have no basis for proceeding on the assumption that People v Mosley, supra, and cases therein cited are not still controlling authority. 1974Although People v Mosley, supra, may be under some question by reason of the statement of the majority of the Court in the case of People v France, 370 Mich 156 ; 121 NW2d 476 (1963), of an inclination to reexamine the Mosley rule, "under a proper record”, we do now, as previously in People v Roney, 7 Mich App 678 ; 153 NW2d 175 (1967), and People v Linscott, 14 Mich App 334 ; 165 NW2d 514 (1968), rule that we have no basis for proceeding on the assumption that People v Mosley, supra, and cases therein cited are not still controlling authority. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary
green
2 sentences1974We are also aware that in People v Hill, 44 Mich App 308 ; 205 NW2d 267 (1973), where the facts are almost identical to the instant case, the Court in citing Giordenello v United States, 357 US 480 ; 78 S Ct 1245 ; 2 L Ed 2d 1503 (1958), and Whiteley v Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 US 560 ; 91 S Ct 1031 ; 28 L Ed 2d 306 (1971), to define the Fourth Amendment requirements as to probable cause sufficient to justify the issuance of a warrant, interpreted the Giordenello decision as overruling the long line of Michigan cases preventing a defendant from impeaching the complaint by showing 1974We are also aware that in People v Hill, 44 Mich App 308 ; 205 NW2d 267 (1973), where the facts are almost identical to the instant case, the Court in citing Giordenello v United States, 357 US 480 ; 78 S Ct 1245 ; 2 L Ed 2d 1503 (1958), and Whiteley v Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 US 560 ; 91 S Ct 1031 ; 28 L Ed 2d 306 (1971), to define the Fourth Amendment requirements as to probable cause sufficient to justify the issuance of a warrant, interpreted the Giordenello decision as overruling the long line of Michigan cases preventing a defendant from impeaching the complaint by showing | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.