contention error in Michigan

2026Id.

2025Id. at ___; slip op at 8.

2022People v Mardlin, 487 Mich 609, 621-622 ; 790 NW2d 607 (2010) (rejecting the contention that the rule stated in Golochowicz applied outside the context of a modus operandi theory for proving identity). -12- In this case, the prosecution did not try to establish that the similarities between the robberies were so great that proof that defendant committed one of the other robberies showed that he likely committed the robbery at issue.

2022People v Mardlin, 487 Mich 609, 621-622 ; 790 NW2d 607 (2010) (rejecting the contention that the rule stated in Golochowicz applied outside the context of a modus operandi theory for proving identity). -12- In this case, the prosecution did not try to establish that the similarities between the robberies were so great that proof that defendant committed one of the other robberies showed that he likely committed the robbery at issue.

2016Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.25 Thus, when counsel “clearly expresse[s] satisfaction with the 20 People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450, 457 ; 678 NW2d 631 (2004). 21 Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . 22 People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 276 ; 531 NW2d 659 (1995), reh den 448 Mich 1225 (1995). 23 Id. 24 Thomas, 260 Mich App at 457 . 25 People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000). -5- trial court’s decision,” a waiver occurs.26 When the issue of Felando’s prior carjacking was discussed in the trial court, Felando’s counsel raised MRE 404(b) as a potenti

2016Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.25 Thus, when counsel “clearly expresse[s] satisfaction with the 20 People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450, 457 ; 678 NW2d 631 (2004). 21 Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . 22 People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 276 ; 531 NW2d 659 (1995), reh den 448 Mich 1225 (1995). 23 Id. 24 Thomas, 260 Mich App at 457 . 25 People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000). -5- trial court’s decision,” a waiver occurs.26 When the issue of Felando’s prior carjacking was discussed in the trial court, Felando’s counsel raised MRE 404(b) as a potenti

2016In People v Cooper, 236 Mich App 643, 658 ; 601 NW2d 409 (1999), this Court rejected a defendant’s contention that defense counsel was ineffective for neglecting to call as a defense witness an eyewitness identification expert, explaining: 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -4- Defendant also argues that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present expert psychological testimony about how the circumstances of the incident could have impaired McGinnis’ perception, memory, and ability to recognize the shooter.

2016In People v Cooper, 236 Mich App 643, 658 ; 601 NW2d 409 (1999), this Court rejected a defendant’s contention that defense counsel was ineffective for neglecting to call as a defense witness an eyewitness identification expert, explaining: 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -4- Defendant also argues that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present expert psychological testimony about how the circumstances of the incident could have impaired McGinnis’ perception, memory, and ability to recognize the shooter.

2016Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.25 Thus, when counsel “clearly expresse[s] satisfaction with the 20 People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450, 457 ; 678 NW2d 631 (2004). 21 Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . 22 People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 276 ; 531 NW2d 659 (1995), reh den 448 Mich 1225 (1995). 23 Id. 24 Thomas, 260 Mich App at 457 . 25 People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000). -5- trial court’s decision,” a waiver occurs.26 When the issue of Felando’s prior carjacking was discussed in the trial court, Felando’s counsel raised MRE 404(b) as a potenti

2016Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.25 Thus, when counsel “clearly expresse[s] satisfaction with the 20 People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450, 457 ; 678 NW2d 631 (2004). 21 Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . 22 People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 276 ; 531 NW2d 659 (1995), reh den 448 Mich 1225 (1995). 23 Id. 24 Thomas, 260 Mich App at 457 . 25 People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000). -5- trial court’s decision,” a waiver occurs.26 When the issue of Felando’s prior carjacking was discussed in the trial court, Felando’s counsel raised MRE 404(b) as a potenti

2016In People v Cooper, 236 Mich App 643, 658 ; 601 NW2d 409 (1999), this Court rejected a defendant’s contention that defense counsel was ineffective for neglecting to call as a defense witness an eyewitness identification expert, explaining: 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -4- Defendant also argues that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present expert psychological testimony about how the circumstances of the incident could have impaired McGinnis’ perception, memory, and ability to recognize the shooter.

2016In People v Cooper, 236 Mich App 643, 658 ; 601 NW2d 409 (1999), this Court rejected a defendant’s contention that defense counsel was ineffective for neglecting to call as a defense witness an eyewitness identification expert, explaining: 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -4- Defendant also argues that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present expert psychological testimony about how the circumstances of the incident could have impaired McGinnis’ perception, memory, and ability to recognize the shooter.

2016Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.25 Thus, when counsel “clearly expresse[s] satisfaction with the 20 People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450, 457 ; 678 NW2d 631 (2004). 21 Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . 22 People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 276 ; 531 NW2d 659 (1995), reh den 448 Mich 1225 (1995). 23 Id. 24 Thomas, 260 Mich App at 457 . 25 People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000). -5- trial court’s decision,” a waiver occurs.26 When the issue of Felando’s prior carjacking was discussed in the trial court, Felando’s counsel raised MRE 404(b) as a potenti

2016Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.25 Thus, when counsel “clearly expresse[s] satisfaction with the 20 People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450, 457 ; 678 NW2d 631 (2004). 21 Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . 22 People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 276 ; 531 NW2d 659 (1995), reh den 448 Mich 1225 (1995). 23 Id. 24 Thomas, 260 Mich App at 457 . 25 People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000). -5- trial court’s decision,” a waiver occurs.26 When the issue of Felando’s prior carjacking was discussed in the trial court, Felando’s counsel raised MRE 404(b) as a potenti

2016Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.25 Thus, when counsel “clearly expresse[s] satisfaction with the 20 People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450, 457 ; 678 NW2d 631 (2004). 21 Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . 22 People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 276 ; 531 NW2d 659 (1995), reh den 448 Mich 1225 (1995). 23 Id. 24 Thomas, 260 Mich App at 457 . 25 People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000). -5- trial court’s decision,” a waiver occurs.26 When the issue of Felando’s prior carjacking was discussed in the trial court, Felando’s counsel raised MRE 404(b) as a potenti

1996The contention that the standard contract is merely a guideline because it only binds providers if they voluntarily enter into a contract with the department is effectively refuted by the Court of Appeals holding in Delta Co v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 118 Mich App 458 ; 325 NW2d 455 (1982).

1996The contention that the standard contract is merely a guideline because it only binds providers if they voluntarily enter into a contract with the department is effectively refuted by the Court of Appeals holding in Delta Co v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 118 Mich App 458 ; 325 NW2d 455 (1982).

1992Rather, we find that the Supreme Court, in Uhrstadt v Sauer Cooperage Co, 309 Mich 201, 204 ; 14 NW2d 834 (1944), rejected the contention that it was error for the trial court to consider a motion for a new trial after the expiration of the limitation period, applicable to the motion: There is no merit to this contention.

1992Rather, we find that the Supreme Court, in Uhrstadt v Sauer Cooperage Co, 309 Mich 201, 204 ; 14 NW2d 834 (1944), rejected the contention that it was error for the trial court to consider a motion for a new trial after the expiration of the limitation period, applicable to the motion: There is no merit to this contention.

1992Sharp v Fairbanks North Star Borough, 569 P2d 178 (Alas, 1977), also presented a foreseeability question.

1990In People v Kent, 157 Mich App 780, 789-792 ; 404 NW2d 668 (1987), the Court of Appeals reversed the defendant's convictions because of errors in evidentiary rulings, and went on to address the defendant's contention that error which required reversal took place when a court clerk took meal orders from the jury during its deliberations.

1990In People v Kent, 157 Mich App 780, 789-792 ; 404 NW2d 668 (1987), the Court of Appeals reversed the defendant's convictions because of errors in evidentiary rulings, and went on to address the defendant's contention that error which required reversal took place when a court clerk took meal orders from the jury during its deliberations.

1982We will begin our analysis by rejecting the defendants’ contention that the rule of law announced in People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672 ; 299 NW2d 304 (1980), is applicable to the instant case.

1982We will begin our analysis by rejecting the defendants’ contention that the rule of law announced in People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672 ; 299 NW2d 304 (1980), is applicable to the instant case.

1982In D H Overmyer Co, Inc, of Ohio v Frick Co, 405 US 174 ; 92 S Ct 775 ; 31 L Ed 2d 124 (1972), the Court upheld the validity of a cognovit clause which was incorporated in an agreement between two private parties, against a contention that the clause permitted a deprivation of property without notice or a hearing.

1982In D H Overmyer Co, Inc, of Ohio v Frick Co, 405 US 174 ; 92 S Ct 775 ; 31 L Ed 2d 124 (1972), the Court upheld the validity of a cognovit clause which was incorporated in an agreement between two private parties, against a contention that the clause permitted a deprivation of property without notice or a hearing.

1980People v Eddington, 387 Mich 551, 561-563 ; 198 NW2d 297 (1972).

1980People v Eddington, 387 Mich 551, 561-563 ; 198 NW2d 297 (1972).

1980In Melia v Employment Security Commission, 346 Mich 544, 562 ; 78 NW2d 273 (1956), the Supreme Court expressed the following guidelines: *366 "The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.

1980In Melia v Employment Security Commission, 346 Mich 544, 562 ; 78 NW2d 273 (1956), the Supreme Court expressed the following guidelines: *366 "The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.

1979"Before you may convict, you must be convinced of the following beyond a reasonable doubt: First, the crime charged must have been committed either by the Defendant or some other person; second, the Defendant must have performed acts or given encouragement which aided or assisted the commission of that crime either before or at the time of the commission of the crime; third, the Defendant must have intended the commission of the crime charged at the time of giving aid or encouragement.” It is the defendant’s contention that the rule of People v Olsson, 56 Mich App 500 ; 224 NW2d 691 (1974), re

1979"Before you may convict, you must be convinced of the following beyond a reasonable doubt: First, the crime charged must have been committed either by the Defendant or some other person; second, the Defendant must have performed acts or given encouragement which aided or assisted the commission of that crime either before or at the time of the commission of the crime; third, the Defendant must have intended the commission of the crime charged at the time of giving aid or encouragement.” It is the defendant’s contention that the rule of People v Olsson, 56 Mich App 500 ; 224 NW2d 691 (1974), re

1975The rule, that the statute must be designed to protect the class of persons in which the plaintiff is included against the risk of the type of harm which has in fact occurred as a result of its violation, is reiterated in Hardaway v Consolidated Paper Co, 366 Mich 190 ; 114 NW2d 236 (1962).

1975The rule, that the statute must be designed to protect the class of persons in which the plaintiff is included against the risk of the type of harm which has in fact occurred as a result of its violation, is reiterated in Hardaway v Consolidated Paper Co, 366 Mich 190 ; 114 NW2d 236 (1962).

1975People v Bright, 50 Mich App 401, 406 ; 213 NW2d 279 (1973).

1975People v Bright, 50 Mich App 401, 406 ; 213 NW2d 279 (1973).

1971Defendant cites' People v. Sacharczyk (1969), 16 Mich App 710 , in support of this contention of error.

1971People v. Woody (1970), 25 Mich App 627 .

1958Boyle v. Berg, 242 Mich 225 ; Michigamme Oil Co. v. Huron Valley Building & Savings Ass’n, 280 Mich 12 .” The facts in the Foltz Case very much resemble the facts in the instant case, in that the only basis for a contention for a requirement to pay is based upon a colloquy between counsel and the court.

1958Boyle v. Berg, 242 Mich 225 ; Michigamme Oil Co. v. Huron Valley Building & Savings Ass’n, 280 Mich 12 .” The facts in the Foltz Case very much resemble the facts in the instant case, in that the only basis for a contention for a requirement to pay is based upon a colloquy between counsel and the court.

1939The same contention or claim was made in Meek v. Wilson, 283 Mich. 679 .

1939With regard to the contention that it was error to exclude the testimony of a certain witness to the effect that Mathilda Heiler had made declarations tending to disprove the claim and to deny the indebtedness, it was said in a similar case by Judge Cooley, speaking for the court, in VanFleet v. VanFleet, 50 Mich. 1 : “As a part of his case the claimant proved declarations of the intestate tending to show that he expected to pay for the claimant’s services.

1922Plaintiff cites in support of the contention that this was error Larned v. Vander linde, 165 Mich. 464 , where the question of safe place arose and the court held that proof that no other accidents had occurred at the place was not competent to prove its safe condition.