5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2021WALKER’S APPEAL A. SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE Walker first argues that the prosecution violated the rule stated in Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963), when it failed to disclose that a witness, Dorian Diaz, was incarcerated at the time when he claimed he overheard Walker and Chandler planning to rob and kill Lee. 2021WALKER’S APPEAL A. SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE Walker first argues that the prosecution violated the rule stated in Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963), when it failed to disclose that a witness, Dorian Diaz, was incarcerated at the time when he claimed he overheard Walker and Chandler planning to rob and kill Lee. | 3 | 2010–2021 |
People v. Banks
green
2 sentences2020“When determining the appropriate remedy for discovery violations, the trial court must balance the interests of the courts, the public, and the parties in light of all the relevant circumstances, including the reasons for noncompliance.” People v Banks, 249 Mich App 247, 252 ; 642 NW2d 351 (2002). 2020“When determining the appropriate remedy for discovery violations, the trial court must balance the interests of the courts, the public, and the parties in light of all the relevant circumstances, including the reasons for noncompliance.” People v Banks, 249 Mich App 247, 252 ; 642 NW2d 351 (2002). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Fox
green
2 sentences2017“A defendant has a due process right of access to certain information possessed by the prosecution.” People v Fox (After Remand), 232 Mich App 541, 549 ; 591 NW2d 384 (1998), citing Brady, 373 US at 83 . 2017“A defendant has a due process right of access to certain information possessed by the prosecution.” People v Fox (After Remand), 232 Mich App 541, 549 ; 591 NW2d 384 (1998), citing Brady, 373 US at 83 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Fountain
green
2 sentences1981On appeal defendant claims the bargain was illusory because the prosecution violated the rule set forth in People v Fountain, 407 Mich 96, 98 ; 282 NW2d 168 (1979), to wit: "A prosecutor who knows a person has a prior felony record must promptly proceed, if at all, against the person as an habitual offender”. 1981On appeal defendant claims the bargain was illusory because the prosecution violated the rule set forth in People v Fountain, 407 Mich 96, 98 ; 282 NW2d 168 (1979), to wit: "A prosecutor who knows a person has a prior felony record must promptly proceed, if at all, against the person as an habitual offender”. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Young
green
2 sentences1981Fountain and People v Young, 410 Mich 363 ; 301 NW2d 803 (1981), the two cases wherein the Supreme Court discusses this issue, are both cases that involve the issuance of a supplemental information after the defendant has been convicted. 1981Fountain and People v Young, 410 Mich 363 ; 301 NW2d 803 (1981), the two cases wherein the Supreme Court discusses this issue, are both cases that involve the issuance of a supplemental information after the defendant has been convicted. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.