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.
30 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2026 15 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. McPhersongreen2 sentences2026So if the Court[] is denying the motion then maybe I would ask for an instruction to the jury that they are not to consider that in [] deliberation[.] Under the doctrine of invited error, “a party waives the right to seek appellate review when the party’s own conduct directly causes the error.” People v McPherson, 263 Mich App 124, 139 ; 687 NW2d 370 (2004). 2026So if the Court[] is denying the motion then maybe I would ask for an instruction to the jury that they are not to consider that in [] deliberation[.] Under the doctrine of invited error, “a party waives the right to seek appellate review when the party’s own conduct directly causes the error.” People v McPherson, 263 Mich App 124, 139 ; 687 NW2d 370 (2004). | 3 | 12 |
Vannoy v. City of Warrengreen2 sentences2025See Vannoy v City of Warren, 386 Mich 686, 690 ; 194 NW2d 304 (1972) (discussing the invited-error doctrine). -7- (a) The issues of whether the injured person has suffered serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement are questions of law for the court if the court finds either of the following: (i) There is no factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the person’s injuries. (ii) There is a factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the person’s injuries, but the dispute is not material to the determination whether the person has suffered a serious i 2025See Vannoy v City of Warren, 386 Mich 686, 690 ; 194 NW2d 304 (1972) (discussing the invited-error doctrine). -7- (a) The issues of whether the injured person has suffered serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement are questions of law for the court if the court finds either of the following: (i) There is no factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the person’s injuries. (ii) There is a factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the person’s injuries, but the dispute is not material to the determination whether the person has suffered a serious i | 3 | 6 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2022Defendant’s speculation that the resentencing judge will impose the highest possible sentence at a later resentencing hearing, does not suffice to establish grounds for judicial 6 Because defendant elicited the resentencing judge’s consideration of the Miller factors, the situation is analogous to an invited error which occurs “when a party’s own affirmative conduct directly causes the error.” People v Jones, 468 Mich 345 , 352 n 6; 662 NW2d 376 (2003). 2022Defendant’s speculation that the resentencing judge will impose the highest possible sentence at a later resentencing hearing, does not suffice to establish grounds for judicial 6 Because defendant elicited the resentencing judge’s consideration of the Miller factors, the situation is analogous to an invited error which occurs “when a party’s own affirmative conduct directly causes the error.” People v Jones, 468 Mich 345 , 352 n 6; 662 NW2d 376 (2003). | 1 | 12 |
Moody v. Home Owners Insurancegreen2 sentences2023“Invited error is typically said to occur when a party’s own affirmative conduct directly causes the error.” Moody v Home Owners Ins Co, 304 Mich App 415, 438 ; 849 NW2d 31 (2014) rev’d on other grounds by Hodge v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 499 Mich 211 ; 884 NW2d 238 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2016Under the invited-error doctrine, appellate relief is generally not available because “when a party invites the error, he waives his right to seek appellate review, and any error is extinguished.” A related rule is that error requiring reversal may only be predicated on the trial court’s actions and not upon alleged error to which the aggrieved party contributed by plan or negligence. -3- [Moody v Home Owners Ins Co, 304 Mich App 415, 438-439 ; 849 NW2d 31 (2014) (citations and quotation marks omitted).] In this case, defendant initially asserted in its affirmative defenses that the benefits c | 1 | 3 |
People v. Kowalskigreen2 sentences2023See People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 504 ; 803 NW2d 200 (2011) (stating that “by expressly and repeatedly approving the jury instructions on the record, defendant waived any objection to the erroneous instructions, and there is no error to review”); People v McPherson, 263 Mich App 124, 139 ; 687 NW2d 370 (2004) (“Under the doctrine of invited error, a party waives the right to seek appellate review when the party’s own conduct directly causes the error. . . . 2023See People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 504 ; 803 NW2d 200 (2011) (stating that “by expressly and repeatedly approving the jury instructions on the record, defendant waived any objection to the erroneous instructions, and there is no error to review”); People v McPherson, 263 Mich App 124, 139 ; 687 NW2d 370 (2004) (“Under the doctrine of invited error, a party waives the right to seek appellate review when the party’s own conduct directly causes the error. . . . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carinesgreen1 sentence2003See People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999); People v Carter, 462 Mich 206 (2000).” 465 Mich 974 (2002). 6 “Invited error” is typically said to occur when a party’s own affirmative conduct directly causes the error. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Erbgreen2 sentences1978See People v McShan, 53 Mich App 407, 415-418 ; 219 NW2d 792, 797-798 (1974), People v Erb, 48 Mich App 622, 630 ; 211 NW2d 51, 55 (1973). 1978See People v McShan, 53 Mich App 407, 415-418 ; 219 NW2d 792, 797-798 (1974), People v Erb, 48 Mich App 622, 630 ; 211 NW2d 51, 55 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
People v. McShangreen2 sentences1978See People v McShan, 53 Mich App 407, 415-418 ; 219 NW2d 792, 797-798 (1974), People v Erb, 48 Mich App 622, 630 ; 211 NW2d 51, 55 (1973). 1978See People v McShan, 53 Mich App 407, 415-418 ; 219 NW2d 792, 797-798 (1974), People v Erb, 48 Mich App 622, 630 ; 211 NW2d 51, 55 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lewis v. LeGrow
green
2 sentences2019For example, in Vannoy v City of Warren, 386 Mich 686, 690 ; 194 NW2d 304 (1972), this Court explained that a party cannot seek appellate review of an instruction that he himself requested, saying, “Assuming error as claimed, that error comes within the purview of what of tradition and common sense is known as ‘invited error.’ ” Appellate review is precluded because when a party invites the error, he waives his right to seek appellate review, and any error is extinguished. [Cassidy v Cassidy, 318 Mich App 463 , 476; 899 NW2d 65 , 75, lv den 501 Mich 908 (2017), quoting People v Jones, 468 Mich 2019For example, in Vannoy v City of Warren, 386 Mich 686, 690 ; 194 NW2d 304 (1972), this Court explained that a party cannot seek appellate review of an instruction that he himself requested, saying, “Assuming error as claimed, that error comes within the purview of what of tradition and common sense is known as ‘invited error.’ ” Appellate review is precluded because when a party invites the error, he waives his right to seek appellate review, and any error is extinguished. [Cassidy v Cassidy, 318 Mich App 463 , 476; 899 NW2d 65 , 75, lv den 501 Mich 908 (2017), quoting People v Jones, 468 Mich | 3 | 2014–2019 |
Hodge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2023“Invited error is typically said to occur when a party’s own affirmative conduct directly causes the error.” Moody v Home Owners Ins Co, 304 Mich App 415, 438 ; 849 NW2d 31 (2014) rev’d on other grounds by Hodge v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 499 Mich 211 ; 884 NW2d 238 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2023“Invited error is typically said to occur when a party’s own affirmative conduct directly causes the error.” Moody v Home Owners Ins Co, 304 Mich App 415, 438 ; 849 NW2d 31 (2014) rev’d on other grounds by Hodge v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 499 Mich 211 ; 884 NW2d 238 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Whetstone
green
2 sentences2016A “[d]efendant cannot complain of admission of testimony which defendant invited or instigated.” People v Whetstone, 119 Mich App 546, 554 ; 326 NW2d 552 (1982). 2016A “[d]efendant cannot complain of admission of testimony which defendant invited or instigated.” People v Whetstone, 119 Mich App 546, 554 ; 326 NW2d 552 (1982). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Carter
green
1 sentence2003See People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999); People v Carter, 462 Mich 206 (2000).” 465 Mich 974 (2002). 6 “Invited error” is typically said to occur when a party’s own affirmative conduct directly causes the error. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Jones
green
1 sentence2003See People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999); People v Carter, 462 Mich 206 (2000).” 465 Mich 974 (2002). 6 “Invited error” is typically said to occur when a party’s own affirmative conduct directly causes the error. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.