5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2003 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. Massgreen2 sentences2003See [People v Mass, 464 Mich 615, 650 ; 628 NW2d 540 (2001)] (Markman, J., concurring).” Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued July 30, 2002 (Docket No. 234130) at 4. 2003See [People v Mass, 464 Mich 615, 650 ; 628 NW2d 540 (2001)] (Markman, J., concurring).” Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued July 30, 2002 (Docket No. 234130) at 4. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stephensgreen2 sentences1981The dissent in Stephens clearly rejects the idea of such a defense, People v Stephens, supra, 255 (Beasley, P.J., dissenting). 1981Perkins, Criminal Law (2d ed), ch 6, § 3, pp 552-557. [3] For a more detailed discussion of the overt act requirement, see People v Bowen, supra , Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law (2d ed), pp 576-586, Model Penal Code (Tentative Draft No 10, 1960), § 5.01(1)(c), pp 39-48. [4] The dissent in Stephens clearly rejects the idea of such a defense, People v Stephens, supra, 255 (BEASLEY, P.J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Britton
green
2 sentences2001“The provision of the statute, that there must be an act done to effect the object of the conspiracy, merely affords a locus poenitentice, so that before the act [is] done either one or all of the parties may abandon their design, and thus avoid the penalty prescribed by the statute.” United States v Britton, 108 US 199, 204-205 ; 2 S Ct 531 ; 27 L Ed 698 (1883). 2001“The provision of the statute, that there must be an act done to effect the object of the conspiracy, merely affords a locus poenitentice, so that before the act [is] done either one or all of the parties may abandon their design, and thus avoid the penalty prescribed by the statute.” United States v Britton, 108 US 199, 204-205 ; 2 S Ct 531 ; 27 L Ed 698 (1883). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah v. Martin
green
2 sentences2001"The provision of the statute, that there must be an act done to effect the object of the conspiracy, merely affords a locus poenitentice, so that before the act [is] done either one or all of the parties may abandon their design, and thus avoid the penalty prescribed by the statute." United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 204-05 , 2 S.Ct. 531 , 27 L.Ed. 698 (1883). 2001“The provision of the statute, that there must be an act done to effect the object of the conspiracy, merely affords a locus poenitentice, so that before the act [is] done either one or all of the parties may abandon their design, and thus avoid the penalty prescribed by the statute.” United States v Britton, 108 US 199, 204-205 ; 2 S Ct 531 ; 27 L Ed 698 (1883). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Bowen
green
2 sentences1986People v Bowen, 10 Mich App 1, 12 ; 158 NW2d 794 (1968). 1986People v Bowen, 10 Mich App 1, 12 ; 158 NW2d 794 (1968). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Shafou
green
1 sentence1985With respect to an overt act requirement, the Court in Shafou, supra, considered that issue, but a majority of justices were unable to agree on whether or not such a requirement ex *143 ists. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Plyler
neutral
1 sentence1985This Court was also faced with the issue in Plyler, supra, pp 445-446 , but did not decide if an overt act was required as it found that, in any event, there had been an overt act in that case. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.