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.
28 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 |
|---|---|---|
Trinova Corp. v. Michigan Department of Treasurygreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Trinova [Corp v Michigan Dep’t of Treasury, 498 US 358 ; 111 S Ct 818 ; 112 L Ed 2d 884 (1991)]; Goldberg v Sweet, 488 US 252 ; 109 S Ct 582 ; 102 L Ed 2d 607 (1989); Amerada Hess Corp v New Jersey Dep’t of the Treasury, 490 US 66 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989); American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc v Scheiner, [ 483 US 266 ; 107 S Ct 2829 ; 97 L Ed 2d 226 (1987)]; Maryland v Louisiana, 451 US 725 ; 101 S Ct 2114 ; 68 L Ed 2d 576 (1981). 2002See, e.g., Trinova [Corp v Michigan Dep’t of Treasury, 498 US 358 ; 111 S Ct 818 ; 112 L Ed 2d 884 (1991)]; Goldberg v Sweet, 488 US 252 ; 109 S Ct 582 ; 102 L Ed 2d 607 (1989); Amerada Hess Corp v New Jersey Dep’t of the Treasury, 490 US 66 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989); American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc v Scheiner, [ 483 US 266 ; 107 S Ct 2829 ; 97 L Ed 2d 226 (1987)]; Maryland v Louisiana, 451 US 725 ; 101 S Ct 2114 ; 68 L Ed 2d 576 (1981). | 2 | 2 |
People v. VanderVlietgreen2 sentences2021In particular, a four-pronged standard applies in determining the admissibility of other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b)(1): First, that the evidence be offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b); second, that it be relevant under Rule 402 as enforced through Rule 104(b); third, that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; fourth, that the trial court may, upon request, provide a limiting instruction to the jury. [Kelly, 317 Mich App at 644 , quoting People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52, 55 ; 508 NW2d 114 (1993), amended on other grounds 445 Mic 2021In particular, a four-pronged standard applies in determining the admissibility of other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b)(1): First, that the evidence be offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b); second, that it be relevant under Rule 402 as enforced through Rule 104(b); third, that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; fourth, that the trial court may, upon request, provide a limiting instruction to the jury. [Kelly, 317 Mich App at 644 , quoting People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52, 55 ; 508 NW2d 114 (1993), amended on other grounds 445 Mic | 1 | 12 |
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Bradygreen2 sentences2007As we have explained before, a state tax withstands scrutiny under a Commerce Clause challenge and will be found constitutionally valid if it meets the four-pronged test articulated in Complete Auto Transit, Inc v Brady, 430 US 274, 279 ; 97 S Ct 1076 ; 51L Ed 2d 326 (1977). 2007As we have explained before, a state tax withstands scrutiny under a Commerce Clause challenge and will be found constitutionally valid if it meets the four-pronged test articulated in Complete Auto Transit, Inc v Brady, 430 US 274, 279 ; 97 S Ct 1076 ; 51L Ed 2d 326 (1977). | 1 | 6 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2018A statement is admissible under MRE 801(d)(1)(B) if: (1) the declarant must testify at trial and be subject to cross-examination; (2) there must be an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive of the declarant’s testimony; (3) the proponent must offer a prior consistent statement that is consistent with the declarant’s challenged in-court testimony; and, (4) the prior consistent statement must be made prior to the time that the supposed motive to falsify arose. [People v Jones, 240 Mich App 704, 707 ; 613 NW2d 411 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitt 2017Although DeMott contends on appeal that the motivation to fabricate arose when MR’s mother was originally questioned, this Court has explained that “the motive in the second element must be the same motive in the fourth element of the four-pronged test to admit a prior consistent statement under MRE 801(d)(1)(B).” People v Jones, 240 Mich App 704, 711 ; 613 NW2d 411 (2000). | 1 | 4 |
Caterpillar, Inc v. Department of Treasurygreen2 sentences2016A state tax will withstand scrutiny under a Commerce Clause challenge and will be held to be constitutionally valid under the four-pronged test articulated in Complete Auto provided that the tax: (1) is applied to an activity having a substantial nexus with the taxing state, (2) is fairly apportioned, (3) does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and (4) is fairly related to the services provided by the state. [Caterpillar, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 440 Mich 400, 415 ; 488 NW2d 182 (1992).] Only the third prong is challenged in this case; plaintiffs contend that 2014 PA 282 discriminat 2016A state tax will withstand scrutiny under a Commerce Clause challenge and will be held to be constitutionally valid under the four-pronged test articulated in Complete Auto provided that the tax: (1) is applied to an activity having a substantial nexus with the taxing state, (2) is fairly apportioned, (3) does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and (4) is fairly related to the services provided by the state. [Caterpillar, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 440 Mich 400, 415 ; 488 NW2d 182 (1992).] Only the third prong is challenged in this case; plaintiffs contend that 2014 PA 282 discriminat | 1 | 3 |
Anzaldua v. Bandgreen2 sentences2014The four-pronged test set forth in Anzaldua , while perhaps a useful distillation of the Court’s rationale in that case, should not be read as supplanting or excusing a court’s fundamental interpretive obligations, nor does its satisfaction foreclose a court from concluding, on the basis of proper review of the statute as a whole, that the Legislature did not intend to attach a jury right to a claim of damages. 35 Anzaldua, 457 Mich at 538, 541 . 36 See id. at 541 . 2014The four-pronged test set forth in Anzaldua , while perhaps a useful distillation of the Court’s rationale in that case, should not be read as supplanting or excusing a court’s fundamental interpretive obligations, nor does its satisfaction foreclose a court from concluding, on the basis of proper review of the statute as a whole, that the Legislature did not intend to attach a jury right to a claim of damages. 35 Anzaldua, 457 Mich at 538, 541 . 36 See id. at 541 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2000See id. | 1 | 1 |
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commissiongreen1 sentence1997On appeal, both parties correctly acknowledge that the constitutionality of Rochester Hills Ordinance 200, § 4.02(a)(6) is determined by applying the four-pronged test set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp, supra at 566, to the facts of the case. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Amerada Hess Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation, New Jersey Department of the Treasury
green
2 sentences2016“A tax violates the third prong of the Complete Auto test if it is facially discriminatory, has a discriminatory purpose, or has the effect of unduly burdening interstate commerce.” Caterpillar, -11- 440 Mich at 422 , citing Amerada Hess Corp v NJ Dep’t of Treasury, 490 US 66, 75 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989). [Gillette, 312 Mich App at 430-431 .] Under this test, Gillette found that PA 282 (1) is not facially discriminatory because it does not, “on its face, create any classification based on a taxpayer’s state of origin or the location of commerce[;]” (2) does not have a discrimina 2016“A tax violates the third prong of the Complete Auto test if it is facially discriminatory, has a discriminatory purpose, or has the effect of unduly burdening interstate commerce.” Caterpillar, -11- 440 Mich at 422 , citing Amerada Hess Corp v NJ Dep’t of Treasury, 490 US 66, 75 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989). [Gillette, 312 Mich App at 430-431 .] Under this test, Gillette found that PA 282 (1) is not facially discriminatory because it does not, “on its face, create any classification based on a taxpayer’s state of origin or the location of commerce[;]” (2) does not have a discrimina | 4 | 1992–2016 |
People v. Jones
neutral
2 sentences2018A statement is admissible under MRE 801(d)(1)(B) if: (1) the declarant must testify at trial and be subject to cross-examination; (2) there must be an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive of the declarant’s testimony; (3) the proponent must offer a prior consistent statement that is consistent with the declarant’s challenged in-court testimony; and, (4) the prior consistent statement must be made prior to the time that the supposed motive to falsify arose. [People v Jones, 240 Mich App 704, 707 ; 613 NW2d 411 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitt 2017Although DeMott contends on appeal that the motivation to fabricate arose when MR’s mother was originally questioned, this Court has explained that “the motive in the second element must be the same motive in the fourth element of the four-pronged test to admit a prior consistent statement under MRE 801(d)(1)(B).” People v Jones, 240 Mich App 704, 711 ; 613 NW2d 411 (2000). | 3 | 2017–2018 |
American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Scheiner
green
2 sentences2003Therefore, we have no basis on which to determine the proportionality of the fees after 1995. 14 Because we concluded that the fees are regulatory, plaintiffs additional argument, that the fees violate Michigan’s Uniform Taxation Clause, is without merit. 15 Intervening plaintiffs contend that the four-pronged test enunciated in Complete Auto Transit, Inc v Brady, 430 US 274, 279 ; 97 S Ct 1076 ; 51 L Ed 2d 326 (1977), and utilized in American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc v Scheiner, 483 US 266, 283 ; 107 S Ct 2829 ; 97 L Ed 2d 226 (1987), is applicable. 2003Therefore, we have no basis on which to determine the proportionality of the fees after 1995. 14 Because we concluded that the fees are regulatory, plaintiffs additional argument, that the fees violate Michigan’s Uniform Taxation Clause, is without merit. 15 Intervening plaintiffs contend that the four-pronged test enunciated in Complete Auto Transit, Inc v Brady, 430 US 274, 279 ; 97 S Ct 1076 ; 51 L Ed 2d 326 (1977), and utilized in American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc v Scheiner, 483 US 266, 283 ; 107 S Ct 2829 ; 97 L Ed 2d 226 (1987), is applicable. | 3 | 1992–2003 |
Goldberg v. Sweet
green
2 sentences2002See, e.g., Trinova [Corp v Michigan Dep’t of Treasury, 498 US 358 ; 111 S Ct 818 ; 112 L Ed 2d 884 (1991)]; Goldberg v Sweet, 488 US 252 ; 109 S Ct 582 ; 102 L Ed 2d 607 (1989); Amerada Hess Corp v New Jersey Dep’t of the Treasury, 490 US 66 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989); American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc v Scheiner, [ 483 US 266 ; 107 S Ct 2829 ; 97 L Ed 2d 226 (1987)]; Maryland v Louisiana, 451 US 725 ; 101 S Ct 2114 ; 68 L Ed 2d 576 (1981). 2002See, e.g., Trinova [Corp v Michigan Dep’t of Treasury, 498 US 358 ; 111 S Ct 818 ; 112 L Ed 2d 884 (1991)]; Goldberg v Sweet, 488 US 252 ; 109 S Ct 582 ; 102 L Ed 2d 607 (1989); Amerada Hess Corp v New Jersey Dep’t of the Treasury, 490 US 66 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989); American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc v Scheiner, [ 483 US 266 ; 107 S Ct 2829 ; 97 L Ed 2d 226 (1987)]; Maryland v Louisiana, 451 US 725 ; 101 S Ct 2114 ; 68 L Ed 2d 576 (1981). | 2 | 1992–2002 |
Maryland v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2002See, e.g., Trinova [Corp v Michigan Dep’t of Treasury, 498 US 358 ; 111 S Ct 818 ; 112 L Ed 2d 884 (1991)]; Goldberg v Sweet, 488 US 252 ; 109 S Ct 582 ; 102 L Ed 2d 607 (1989); Amerada Hess Corp v New Jersey Dep’t of the Treasury, 490 US 66 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989); American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc v Scheiner, [ 483 US 266 ; 107 S Ct 2829 ; 97 L Ed 2d 226 (1987)]; Maryland v Louisiana, 451 US 725 ; 101 S Ct 2114 ; 68 L Ed 2d 576 (1981). 2002See, e.g., Trinova [Corp v Michigan Dep’t of Treasury, 498 US 358 ; 111 S Ct 818 ; 112 L Ed 2d 884 (1991)]; Goldberg v Sweet, 488 US 252 ; 109 S Ct 582 ; 102 L Ed 2d 607 (1989); Amerada Hess Corp v New Jersey Dep’t of the Treasury, 490 US 66 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989); American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc v Scheiner, [ 483 US 266 ; 107 S Ct 2829 ; 97 L Ed 2d 226 (1987)]; Maryland v Louisiana, 451 US 725 ; 101 S Ct 2114 ; 68 L Ed 2d 576 (1981). | 2 | 1992–2002 |
People v. Kelly
green
1 sentence2021In particular, a four-pronged standard applies in determining the admissibility of other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b)(1): First, that the evidence be offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b); second, that it be relevant under Rule 402 as enforced through Rule 104(b); third, that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; fourth, that the trial court may, upon request, provide a limiting instruction to the jury. [Kelly, 317 Mich App at 644 , quoting People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52, 55 ; 508 NW2d 114 (1993), amended on other grounds 445 Mic | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Mardlin
green
1 sentence2021In particular, a four-pronged standard applies in determining the admissibility of other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b)(1): First, that the evidence be offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b); second, that it be relevant under Rule 402 as enforced through Rule 104(b); third, that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; fourth, that the trial court may, upon request, provide a limiting instruction to the jury. [Kelly, 317 Mich App at 644 , quoting People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52, 55 ; 508 NW2d 114 (1993), amended on other grounds 445 Mic | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Gillette Commercial Operations North America & Subsidiaries v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences2016“A tax violates the third prong of the Complete Auto test if it is facially discriminatory, has a discriminatory purpose, or has the effect of unduly burdening interstate commerce.” Caterpillar, -11- 440 Mich at 422 , citing Amerada Hess Corp v NJ Dep’t of Treasury, 490 US 66, 75 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989). [Gillette, 312 Mich App at 430-431 .] Under this test, Gillette found that PA 282 (1) is not facially discriminatory because it does not, “on its face, create any classification based on a taxpayer’s state of origin or the location of commerce[;]” (2) does not have a discrimina 2016“A tax violates the third prong of the Complete Auto test if it is facially discriminatory, has a discriminatory purpose, or has the effect of unduly burdening interstate commerce.” Caterpillar, -11- 440 Mich at 422 , citing Amerada Hess Corp v NJ Dep’t of Treasury, 490 US 66, 75 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989). [Gillette, 312 Mich App at 430-431 .] Under this test, Gillette found that PA 282 (1) is not facially discriminatory because it does not, “on its face, create any classification based on a taxpayer’s state of origin or the location of commerce[;]” (2) does not have a discrimina | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Sabin
green
2 sentences2001Under the expansive view of rule 404(b) and VanderVliet that informs the decision in People v. Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich. 43 , 614 N.W.2d 888 (2000), we conclude that the prosecution satisfied the first prong of VanderVliet when it argued at trial that the evidence would show defendant's motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, scheme, plan, or system in doing an act, knowledge, and intent. 2001Under the expansive view of rule 404(b) and VanderVliet that informs the decision in People v. Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich. 43 , 614 N.W.2d 888 (2000), we conclude that the prosecution satisfied the first prong of VanderVliet when it argued at trial that the evidence would show defendant's motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, scheme, plan, or system in doing an act, knowledge, and intent. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Basinger
neutral
2 sentences1996VanderVliet at 74-75 ; People v Basinger, 203 Mich App 603, 606 ; 513 NW2d 828 (1994). 1996VanderVliet at 74-75 ; People v Basinger, 203 Mich App 603, 606 ; 513 NW2d 828 (1994). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Huddleston v. United States
green
2 sentences1993In place of the four-pronged test of Golochowicz , we direct the bench and bar to employ the evidentiary safeguards already present in the Rules of Evidence, as identified by the unanimous United States Supreme Court decision in Huddleston : [FJirst, from the requirement of Rule 404(b) that the evidence be offered for a proper purpose; second, from the relevancy requirement of Rule 402— as enforced through Rule 104(b); third, from the assessment the trial court must make under Rule 403 to determine whether the probative value of the similar acts evidence is substantially outweighed by its pote 1993In place of the four-pronged test of Golochowicz , we direct the bench and bar to employ the evidentiary safeguards already present in the Rules of Evidence, as identified by the unanimous United States Supreme Court decision in Huddleston : [FJirst, from the requirement of Rule 404(b) that the evidence be offered for a proper purpose; second, from the relevancy requirement of Rule 402— as enforced through Rule 104(b); third, from the assessment the trial court must make under Rule 403 to determine whether the probative value of the similar acts evidence is substantially outweighed by its pote | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vt.
green
2 sentences1992"The requisite `nexus' is supplied if [Caterpillar] avails itself of the `substantial privilege of carrying on business' within the State...." Mobil Oil Corp v Comm'r of Taxes of Vermont, 445 US 425, 437 ; 100 S Ct 1223 ; 63 L Ed 2d 510 (1980). 1992"The requisite `nexus' is supplied if [Caterpillar] avails itself of the `substantial privilege of carrying on business' within the State...." Mobil Oil Corp v Comm'r of Taxes of Vermont, 445 US 425, 437 ; 100 S Ct 1223 ; 63 L Ed 2d 510 (1980). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Golochowicz
green
2 sentences1988However, if the prior testimony contains allegations of prior similar bad acts (as here), the testimony must also be admissible pursuant to the four-pronged test enunciated in People v Golochowicz, 413 Mich 298 ; 319 NW2d 518 (1982). 1988However, if the prior testimony contains allegations of prior similar bad acts (as here), the testimony must also be admissible pursuant to the four-pronged test enunciated in People v Golochowicz, 413 Mich 298 ; 319 NW2d 518 (1982). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Morris
green
1 sentence1988Morris, supra at 557 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Whalen
green
2 sentences1981In People v Whalen, 390 Mich 672, 682 ; 213 NW2d 166 (1973), our Supreme Court set forth a four-pronged test to determine the reasonableness of an investigatory stop: "1. 1981In People v Whalen, 390 Mich 672, 682 ; 213 NW2d 166 (1973), our Supreme Court set forth a four-pronged test to determine the reasonableness of an investigatory stop: "1. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Quigley v. Dexter Township
green
2 sentences1981In People v Whalen, 390 Mich 672, 682 ; 213 NW2d 166 (1973), our Supreme Court set forth a four-pronged test to determine the reasonableness of an investigatory stop: "1. 1981In People v Whalen, 390 Mich 672, 682 ; 213 NW2d 166 (1973), our Supreme Court set forth a four-pronged test to determine the reasonableness of an investigatory stop: "1. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.