novel defense in Michigan

2020Defendant notes that trial counsel argued this point to the jury, but performed deficiently by failing to request a jury instruction to support it.4 The prosecution counters that sexsomnia is a novel defense; therefore, “defense counsel’s performance cannot be deemed deficient for failing to advance a novel legal argument.” People v Reed, 453 Mich 685, 695 ; 556 NW2d 858 (1996).

2020Defendant notes that trial counsel argued this point to the jury, but performed deficiently by failing to request a jury instruction to support it.4 The prosecution counters that sexsomnia is a novel defense; therefore, “defense counsel’s performance cannot be deemed deficient for failing to advance a novel legal argument.” People v Reed, 453 Mich 685, 695 ; 556 NW2d 858 (1996).

2015Moreover, an attorney or party should not be dissuaded from disposing of an initially sound case which becomes less meritorious as it develops because they fear the penalty of attorney -8- fees and costs under this statute. [Louya v William Beaumont Hosp, 190 Mich App 151, 163 ; 475 NW2d 434 (1991).] Accordingly: The statutory scheme is designed to sanction attorneys and litigants who file lawsuits or defenses without reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of a claim or defense, not to discipline those whose cases are complex or face an “uphill fight.” The ultimate outcome of the case does

2015Moreover, an attorney or party should not be dissuaded from disposing of an initially sound case which becomes less meritorious as it develops because they fear the penalty of attorney -8- fees and costs under this statute. [Louya v William Beaumont Hosp, 190 Mich App 151, 163 ; 475 NW2d 434 (1991).] Accordingly: The statutory scheme is designed to sanction attorneys and litigants who file lawsuits or defenses without reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of a claim or defense, not to discipline those whose cases are complex or face an “uphill fight.” The ultimate outcome of the case does

2005Despite these authorities, the McCoy Court invented a novel rule: “For cases tried after the publication of this opinion, it will be deemed reversible error ... to fail upon request to give a cautionary instruction concerning accomplice testimony and, if the issue is closely drawn, it may be reversible error to fail to give such a cautionary instruction even in the absence of a request to charge.” McCoy, supra at 240 .

2005Despite these authorities, the McCoy Court invented a novel rule: "For cases tried after the publication of this opinion, it will be deemed reversible error ... to fail upon request to give a cautionary instruction concerning accomplice testimony and, if the issue is closely drawn, it may be reversible error to fail to give such a cautionary instruction even in the absence of a request to charge." McCoy, supra at 240 , 220 N.W.2d 456 .

1906It was therefore open to the defendant upon the trial of this action to assail the title of the plaintiffs.” In Barry v. Insurance Co., 110 N. Y. 1 , an action was brought upon a policy of insurance which contained a condition that if the property insured should be sold or transferred, etc., it should avoid the policy.