non-exhaustive list factors in Michigan

2018The Michigan Supreme Court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider in People v Cipriano, 431 Mich 315, 334 ; 429 NW2d 781 (1988): In determining whether a statement is voluntary, the trial court should consider, among other things, the following factors: the age of the accused; his lack of education or his intelligence level; the extent of his previous experience with the police; the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; the length of the detention of the accused before he gave the statement in question; the lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional righ

2018The Michigan Supreme Court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider in People v Cipriano, 431 Mich 315, 334 ; 429 NW2d 781 (1988): In determining whether a statement is voluntary, the trial court should consider, among other things, the following factors: the age of the accused; his lack of education or his intelligence level; the extent of his previous experience with the police; the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; the length of the detention of the accused before he gave the statement in question; the lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional righ

2025The Vicencio Court provided a non-exhaustive list of the factors a court should consider before imposing the sanction of dismissal: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Id. at 507, citing Dean v Tucker, 182 Mich App 27, 32-33 ; 451

2025The Vicencio Court provided a non-exhaustive list of the factors a court should consider before imposing the sanction of dismissal: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Id. at 507, citing Dean v Tucker, 182 Mich App 27, 32-33 ; 451

2025Stevens, 498 Mich at 180-190 .

2020Id. at 172-173 .

2024The Watkins Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that might lead a court to exclude other-acts evidence under MRE 403, despite its relevance: (1) the dissimilarity between the other acts and the charged crime, (2) the temporal proximity of the other acts to the charged crime, (3) the infrequency of the other acts, (4) the presence of intervening acts, (5) the lack of reliability of the evidence supporting the occurrence of the other acts, and (6) the lack of need for evidence beyond the complainant’s and the defendant’s testimony. [Watkins, 491 Mich at 487-488 .] These factors weig

2020When making an admissibility determination under MRE 403, the trial court may consider the following non-exhaustive list of factors: (1) the dissimilarity between the other acts and the charged crime, (2) the temporal proximity of the other acts to the charged crime, (3) the infrequency of the other acts, (4) the presence of intervening acts, (5) the lack of reliability of the evidence supporting the occurrence of the other acts, and (6) the lack of need for evidence beyond the complainant’s and the defendant’s testimony. [Watkins, 491 Mich at 487-488 .] Importantly, when weighing evidence adm

2023In determining whether a party had a similar motive to examine a witness at a prior proceeding, this Court considers the following non-exhaustive list of factors: (1) whether the party opposing the testimony had at a prior proceeding an interest of substantially similar intensity to prove (or disprove) the same side of a substantially similar issue; (2) the nature of the two proceedings—both what is at stake and the applicable burden of proof; and (3) whether the party opposing the testimony in fact undertook to cross-examine the witness (both the employed and available but forgone opportuniti

2023In determining whether a party had a similar motive to examine a witness at a prior proceeding, this Court considers the following non-exhaustive list of factors: (1) whether the party opposing the testimony had at a prior proceeding an interest of substantially similar intensity to prove (or disprove) the same side of a substantially similar issue; (2) the nature of the two proceedings—both what is at stake and the applicable burden of proof; and (3) whether the party opposing the testimony in fact undertook to cross-examine the witness (both the employed and available but forgone opportuniti

2018ANALYSIS In Steanhouse I, this Court considered the following non-exhaustive list of factors as relevant in reviewing whether a sentence was proportionate: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant's misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. [People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1, 46 ; 880 NW2d 297 (2015) (Steanhouse I) (internal citatio

2018ANALYSIS In Steanhouse I, this Court considered the following non-exhaustive list of factors as relevant in reviewing whether a sentence was proportionate: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant's misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. [People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1, 46 ; 880 NW2d 297 (2015) (Steanhouse I) (internal citatio

1991A nonexhaustive list of factors which may be considered under subsection 7401(4) are: (1) the facts of the crime which mitigate defendant's culpability (see for example the factors listed in Minnesota's and Washington's statutes), (2) defendant's prior record, (3) defendant's age, and (4) defendant's work history. [ Downey, supra at 414-415 .] We adopt and affirm this non exhaustive list of factors but reject Downey's objective, verifiable, and prearrest-conduct limitations.

1990A nonexhaustive list of factors which may be considered under subsection 7401(4) are: (1) the facts of the crime which mitigate defendant's culpability (see for example the factors listed in Minnesota's and Washington's statutes), (2) defendant's prior record, (3) defendant's age, and (4) defendant's work history. [ Downey, supra at 414-415 .] I would adopt and affirm this non exhaustive list of factors but reject Downey's objective/subjective and prearrest limitations.

2025Sparks, 440 Mich at 159-160 .

2024Id. at 314-316 .

2024Id. at 57-58 .

2020MCR 2.302(E)(2). -4- Considering the totality of plaintiff’s discovery misconduct, the trial court should have considered the following non-exhaustive list of factors to determine an appropriate sanction: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with discovery requests (or refusal to disclose witnesses), (3) the prejudice to the defendant, (4) actual notice to the defendant of the witness and the length of time prior to trial that the defendant received such actual notice, (5) whether there exists a history of plaintiff engaging in delibe

2020MCR 2.302(E)(2). -4- Considering the totality of plaintiff’s discovery misconduct, the trial court should have considered the following non-exhaustive list of factors to determine an appropriate sanction: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with discovery requests (or refusal to disclose witnesses), (3) the prejudice to the defendant, (4) actual notice to the defendant of the witness and the length of time prior to trial that the defendant received such actual notice, (5) whether there exists a history of plaintiff engaging in delibe

2020MCL 552.401 states as follows: The circuit court of this state may include in any decree of divorce or of separate maintenance entered in the circuit court appropriate provisions awarding to a party all or a portion of the property, either real or personal, owned by his or her spouse, as appears to the court to be equitable under all the circumstances of the case, if it appears from the evidence in the case that the party contributed to the acquisition, improvement, or accumulation of the property . . . . [MCL 552.401.] -10- In Hanaway v Hanaway, 208 Mich App 278 ; 527 NW2d 792 (1995), this Co

2020MCL 552.401 states as follows: The circuit court of this state may include in any decree of divorce or of separate maintenance entered in the circuit court appropriate provisions awarding to a party all or a portion of the property, either real or personal, owned by his or her spouse, as appears to the court to be equitable under all the circumstances of the case, if it appears from the evidence in the case that the party contributed to the acquisition, improvement, or accumulation of the property . . . . [MCL 552.401.] -10- In Hanaway v Hanaway, 208 Mich App 278 ; 527 NW2d 792 (1995), this Co

2016VandenBerg v VandenBerg, 231 Mich App 497, 502 ; 586 NW2d 570 (1998).

2016VandenBerg v VandenBerg, 231 Mich App 497, 502 ; 586 NW2d 570 (1998).

2016Courts consider a non- exhaustive list of factors to assess vulnerability, People v Huston, 489 Mich 451, 465-466 ; 802 NW2d 261 (2011), and one of the factors is whether the victim was intoxicated, People v Cannon, 481 Mich 152, 158-159 ; 749 NW2d 257 (2008).

2016Courts consider a non- exhaustive list of factors to assess vulnerability, People v Huston, 489 Mich 451, 465-466 ; 802 NW2d 261 (2011), and one of the factors is whether the victim was intoxicated, People v Cannon, 481 Mich 152, 158-159 ; 749 NW2d 257 (2008).

2016Courts consider a non- exhaustive list of factors to assess vulnerability, People v Huston, 489 Mich 451, 465-466 ; 802 NW2d 261 (2011), and one of the factors is whether the victim was intoxicated, People v Cannon, 481 Mich 152, 158-159 ; 749 NW2d 257 (2008).

2016Courts consider a non- exhaustive list of factors to assess vulnerability, People v Huston, 489 Mich 451, 465-466 ; 802 NW2d 261 (2011), and one of the factors is whether the victim was intoxicated, People v Cannon, 481 Mich 152, 158-159 ; 749 NW2d 257 (2008).

2015In determining whether there was sufficient evidence concerning mental anguish, we are guided by the following non-exhaustive list of factors: (1) Testimony that the victim was upset, crying, sobbing, or hysterical during or after the assault. (2) The need by the victim for psychiatric or psychological care or treatment. (3) Some interference with the victim’s ability to conduct a normal life, such as absence from the workplace. (4) Fear for the victim’s life or safety, or that of those near to her. (5) Feelings of anger and humiliation by the victim. (6) Evidence that the victim was prescribe

2015In Spangler, 285 Mich App at 155-156 , this Court provided the following non-exhaustive list of factors for determining whether a statement made to a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE), or similar examiner, was testimonial in nature: -6- (1) the reason for the victim’s presentation to the SANE, e.g., to be checked for injuries or for signs of abuse; (2) the length of time between the abuse and the presentation; (3) what, if any, preliminary questions were asked of the victim or the victim’s representative, or what preliminary conversations took place, before the official interview or examina

2015A reviewing court must consider “the totality of the circumstances of the victim’s statements and decide whether the circumstances objectively indicated that the statements would be available for use in a later prosecution or that the primary purpose of the SANE’s questioning was to establish past events potentially relevant to a later prosecution rather than to meet an ongoing emergency.” Id. at 154 .

2012Therefore, just as in Mago, “the award of the contract was a highly discretionary governmental activity in which ‘too many factors [were] in play to be able to reasonably infer that. . . plaintiff [by virtue alone of being the lowest bidder] would have obtained the desired [contract].’ ” Id. (citation omitted; first alteration in the original).

2007The nature of the two proceedings-both what is at stake and the applicable burden of proof-and, to a lesser extent, the cross-examination at the prior proceeding-both what was undertaken and what was available but forgone-will be relevant though not conclusive on the ultimate issue of similarity of motive. [ Id. at 914-915 .] We find the analysis employed in DiNapoli, supra, well-reasoned and compelling, and thus adopt the following as a non-exhaustive list of factors a trial court is to examine in determining whether the prosecution had a similar motive to examine a witness at the prior proce

2007The nature of the two proceedings-both what is at stake and the applicable burden of proof-and, to a lesser extent, the cross-examination at the prior proceeding-both what was undertaken and what was available but forgone-will be relevant though not conclusive on the ultimate issue of similarity of motive. [ Id. at 914-915 .] We find the analysis employed in DiNapoli, supra, well-reasoned and compelling, and thus adopt the following as a non-exhaustive list of factors a trial court is to examine in determining whether the prosecution had a similar motive to examine a witness at the prior proce