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 2015–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sparks v. Sparks
green
2 sentences2016When dividing the marital estate, it is appropriate for the circuit court to consider the following non-exhaustive factors: (1) duration of the marriage, (2) contributions of the parties to the marital estate, (3) age of the parties, (4) health of the parties, (5) life status of the parties, (6) necessities and circumstances of the parties, (7) earning abilities of the parties, (8) past relations and conduct of the parties, and (9) general principles of equity . . . [Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 159-160 ; 485 NW2d 893 (1992).] “The significance of each of these factors will vary from case to 2016When dividing the marital estate, it is appropriate for the circuit court to consider the following non-exhaustive factors: (1) duration of the marriage, (2) contributions of the parties to the marital estate, (3) age of the parties, (4) health of the parties, (5) life status of the parties, (6) necessities and circumstances of the parties, (7) earning abilities of the parties, (8) past relations and conduct of the parties, and (9) general principles of equity . . . [Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 159-160 ; 485 NW2d 893 (1992).] “The significance of each of these factors will vary from case to | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Smith v. Khouri
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Watkins; People v. Pullen
green
2 sentences2015MRE 403 provides that: “[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Courts should consider the following non-exhaustive factors when deciding whether to exclude admissible evidence under MCL 768.27a for unfair prejudice under MRE 403: (1) the dissimilarity between the other acts and the charged crime, (2) the temporal proximity of the other acts to the charge 2015Id. at 467 . 1 Defendant does not dispute that the elements present in MCL 768.27a(1) existed in this case. -2- In this case, the victim testified that during 2008 and 2009, she and her siblings visited defendant at a home he shared with his girlfriend. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Comerica Bank v. City of Adrian
green
2 sentences2015In doing so, the probate court should consider the following non-exhaustive factors: (1) the size of the trust, (2) the responsibility involved, (3) the character of the work involved, (4) the results achieved, (5) the knowledge, skill, and judgment required and used, (6) the time and the services required, (7) the manner and promptness in performing its duties and responsibilities, (8) any unusual skill or experience of the trustee, (9) the fidelity or disloyalty of the trustee, (10) the amount of risk, (11) the custom in the community for allowances, and (12) any estimate of the trustee of t 2015In doing so, the probate court should consider the following non-exhaustive factors: (1) the size of the trust, (2) the responsibility involved, (3) the character of the work involved, (4) the results achieved, (5) the knowledge, skill, and judgment required and used, (6) the time and the services required, (7) the manner and promptness in performing its duties and responsibilities, (8) any unusual skill or experience of the trustee, (9) the fidelity or disloyalty of the trustee, (10) the amount of risk, (11) the custom in the community for allowances, and (12) any estimate of the trustee of t | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.