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.
9 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2018 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 of Michigan v. Robert Tuttlegreen2 sentences2017Citing our Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v Hartwick, 498 Mich 192 ; 870 NW2d 37 (2015), they argued that they were entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether they were immune from prosecution under § 4 of the MMMA. 2017Citing our Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v Hartwick, 498 Mich 192 ; 870 NW2d 37 (2015), they argued that they were entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether they were immune from prosecution under § 4 of the MMMA. | 1 | 5 |
People v. Hartwickgreen2 sentences2017On November 19, 2013, we affirmed the trial court’s ruling in a published opinion, holding that defendant was precluded from asserting immunity from prosecution under § 4 because he “failed to introduce evidence of (1) some of his patients’ medical conditions, (2) the amount of marijuana they reasonably required for treatment and how long the treatment should continue, and (3) the identity of their physicians.” People v Hartwick, 303 Mich App 247, 250, 260 ; 842 NW2d 545 (2013) (Hartwick II). 2017On November 19, 2013, we affirmed the trial court’s ruling in a published opinion, holding that defendant was precluded from asserting immunity from prosecution under § 4 because he “failed to introduce evidence of (1) some of his patients’ medical conditions, (2) the amount of marijuana they reasonably required for treatment and how long the treatment should continue, and (3) the identity of their physicians.” People v Hartwick, 303 Mich App 247, 250, 260 ; 842 NW2d 545 (2013) (Hartwick II). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Motor City Hospital & Surgical Supply, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Put another way, where the parties do not dispute that Hakim did not have a defense and was not immune from prosecution under §§4 or 8 of the MMMA,2 “ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to a criminal prosecution.” People v Motor City Hosp & Surgical Supply, Inc, 227 Mich App 209, 215 ; 575 NW2d 95 (1997). 2018Put another way, where the parties do not dispute that Hakim did not have a defense and was not immune from prosecution under §§4 or 8 of the MMMA,2 “ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to a criminal prosecution.” People v Motor City Hosp & Surgical Supply, Inc, 227 Mich App 209, 215 ; 575 NW2d 95 (1997). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.