5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2019 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. Caingreen2 sentences2019See People v Cain, 498 Mich 108, 159 ; 869 NW2d 829 (2015) (VIVIANO, J., 11 See People v Cain, 498 Mich 108, 159 ; 869 NW2d 829 (2015) (VIVIANO, J., dissenting) (explaining that a “ ‘promissory oath’ . . . obliges the swearer to ‘observe a specified course of conduct in the future’ ”) (citation omitted). 12 Border Patrol agents are required to take the following oath of office: I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental r 2019See People v Cain, 498 Mich 108, 159 ; 869 NW2d 829 (2015) (VIVIANO, J., 11 See People v Cain, 498 Mich 108, 159 ; 869 NW2d 829 (2015) (VIVIANO, J., dissenting) (explaining that a “ ‘promissory oath’ . . . obliges the swearer to ‘observe a specified course of conduct in the future’ ”) (citation omitted). 12 Border Patrol agents are required to take the following oath of office: I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental r | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Kisselgreen2 sentences1965They had neither the compulsion of the oath nor the test of cross-examination”; 3 has (2) warned against an improper extension of “this narrow exception to the hearsay rule”; 4 *has (3) stated that the declaration of one conspirator will not be binding against other conspirators unless the proof discloses declarant was acting as agent of the other conspirators at the time of making, the declaration and that the declaration was made in furtherance of the conspiracy; 5 has (4) emphasized the fact that the acts of one partner in crime is only admissible against the others where it is in furtheran 1965They had neither the compulsion of the oath nor the test of cross-examination”; 3 has (2) warned against an improper extension of “this narrow exception to the hearsay rule”; 4 *has (3) stated that the declaration of one conspirator will not be binding against other conspirators unless the proof discloses declarant was acting as agent of the other conspirators at the time of making, the declaration and that the declaration was made in furtherance of the conspiracy; 5 has (4) emphasized the fact that the acts of one partner in crime is only admissible against the others where it is in furtheran | 1 | 1 |
Fiswick v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1965While such a statement is ‘admissible against the others where it is in furtherance of the criminal undertaking * * * all such responsibility is at an end when the conspiracy ends.’ Fiswick v. United States, 329 US 211, 217 ( 67 S Ct 224 , 91 L ed 196). 1965While such a statement is ‘admissible against the others where it is in furtherance of the criminal undertaking * * * all such responsibility is at an end when the conspiracy ends.’ Fiswick v. United States, 329 US 211, 217 ( 67 S Ct 224 , 91 L ed 196). | 1 | 1 |
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1965They had neither the compulsion of the oath nor the test of cross-examination”; 3 has (2) warned against an improper extension of “this narrow exception to the hearsay rule”; 4 *has (3) stated that the declaration of one conspirator will not be binding against other conspirators unless the proof discloses declarant was acting as agent of the other conspirators at the time of making, the declaration and that the declaration was made in furtherance of the conspiracy; 5 has (4) emphasized the fact that the acts of one partner in crime is only admissible against the others where it is in furtheran 1965They had neither the compulsion of the oath nor the test of cross-examination”; 3 has (2) warned against an improper extension of “this narrow exception to the hearsay rule”; 4 *has (3) stated that the declaration of one conspirator will not be binding against other conspirators unless the proof discloses declarant was acting as agent of the other conspirators at the time of making, the declaration and that the declaration was made in furtherance of the conspiracy; 5 has (4) emphasized the fact that the acts of one partner in crime is only admissible against the others where it is in furtheran | 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 ex rel. Throop v. Langdon
green
1 sentence2019It was, we think, a needless ceremony. [Langdon, 40 Mich at 685 .] Properly understood, Justice COOLEY was stating the seemingly unremarkable proposition that the oath requirement could not be satisfied by the taking of any old oath; instead, it could only be satisfied by the taking of an official oath required for the position by law or ordinance. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Plumaj
green
1 sentence2019This Court reversed, holding that strict compliance with MCR 6.302 is not essential to ensure the validity of a plea and that, while the oath requirement is an aspect of MCR 6.302, the analysis of whether a plea should be set aside should instead hinge on "the nature of the noncompliance" and on whether the defendant's plea was "understandingly, knowingly, voluntarily, and accurately made." Id . at 649, 651-652, 773 N.W.2d 763 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Barone
green
2 sentences2015Finally, it bears mentioning that numerous courts have similarly concluded that the oath is part of the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury. 35 In fact, “[w]ith a remarkable 33 1 Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (4th ed) (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1873), p 549 (originally published in 1833) (emphasis added). 34 Id. 35 See, e.g., State v Barone, 329 Or 210, 226 ; 986 P2d 5 (1999) (“The jury oath is 9 degree of consensus, courts across the nation agree that swearing the jury is an integral, essential, fundamental component of a fair trial.” 36 The majori 2015Finally, it bears mentioning that numerous courts have similarly concluded that the oath is part of the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury. 35 In fact, “[w]ith a remarkable 33 1 Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (4th ed) (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1873), p 549 (originally published in 1833) (emphasis added). 34 Id. 35 See, e.g., State v Barone, 329 Or 210, 226 ; 986 P2d 5 (1999) (“The jury oath is 9 degree of consensus, courts across the nation agree that swearing the jury is an integral, essential, fundamental component of a fair trial.” 36 The majori | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Ramos
green
2 sentences1992An analysis of SB 1208, which became 1980 PA 398 , reveals that the Legislature intended to eliminate the oath requirement and require instead certification by the applicant as a means of providing sufficient legal protection against false applications: The certification requirement would provide sufficient protection against falsification since an applicant who knowingly certified a false application would be guilty of perjury. [Senate Legislative Analysis, SB 1208, September 3, 1980.] Defendant relies on People v Ramos, 430 Mich 544 ; 424 NW2d 509 (1988), for his assertion that the signing o 1992An analysis of SB 1208, which became 1980 PA 398 , reveals that the Legislature intended to eliminate the oath requirement and require instead certification by the applicant as a means of providing sufficient legal protection against false applications: The certification requirement would provide sufficient protection against falsification since an applicant who knowingly certified a false application would be guilty of perjury. [Senate Legislative Analysis, SB 1208, September 3, 1980.] Defendant relies on People v Ramos, 430 Mich 544 ; 424 NW2d 509 (1988), for his assertion that the signing o | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.