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.
171 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1913–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. City of Detroitgreen2 sentences2018And the “doctrine [of stare decisis] is not, to be sure, an imprisonment of reason.” United States v Int’l Boxing Club of NY, 348 US 236, 249 (1955) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). 43 Rowland, 477 Mich at 215 , citing Robinson, 462 Mich at 464-467 . 44 The fact that a party may eventually rely on promissory estoppel or another equitable exception after they make an oral agreement and once litigation has ensued is irrelevant to the stare decisis analysis. 2017In my judgment, the Court of Appeals reached the correct outcome by duly applying our germane holdings in Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000), and Beals v Michigan, 497 Mich 363 ; 871 NW2d 5 (2015). 1 1 Indeed, under the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court of Appeals was bound to follow those decisions. | 9 | 36 |
People v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2017See MCR 7.215(J)(1); People v Jackson, 292 Mich App 583 , 595 n 3; 808 NW2d 541 (2011) (“We are not bound by the decisions of federal courts or courts of other states . . . .”). 2017See MCR 7.215(J)(1); People v Jackson, 292 Mich App 583 , 595 n 3; 808 NW2d 541 (2011) (“We are not bound by the decisions of federal courts or courts of other states . . . .”). | 6 | 6 |
Negri v. Slotkingreen2 sentences2021Of course, the issue remains an unsettled one in Michigan law because the lead opinion commands the votes of only three justices. 3 “Plurality decisions in which no majority of the justices participating agree as to the reasoning are not an authoritative interpretation binding on this Court under the doctrine of stare decisis.” Negri v Slotkin, 397 Mich 105, 109 ; 244 NW2d 98 (1976). 2021Of course, the issue remains an unsettled one in Michigan law because the lead opinion commands the votes of only three justices. 3 “Plurality decisions in which no majority of the justices participating agree as to the reasoning are not an authoritative interpretation binding on this Court under the doctrine of stare decisis.” Negri v Slotkin, 397 Mich 105, 109 ; 244 NW2d 98 (1976). | 5 | 23 |
Brown v. Manistee County Road Commissionred2 sentences2024“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, ‘principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction should not be lightly departed.’ ˮ McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180 , 209- 210; 795 NW2d 517 (2010), quoting Brown v Manistee Co Rd Comm, 452 Mich 354, 365 ; 550 NW2d 215 (1996). 2024“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, ‘principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction should not be lightly departed.’ ˮ McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180 , 209- 210; 795 NW2d 517 (2010), quoting Brown v Manistee Co Rd Comm, 452 Mich 354, 365 ; 550 NW2d 215 (1996). | 5 | 13 |
Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'ngreen2 sentences2010Absent those changes or compelling evidence bearing on Congress’ original intent... our system demands that we adhere to our prior interpretations of statutes.’ ”), quoting Neal v United States, 516 US 284, 295 ; 116 S Ct 763 ; 133 L Ed 2d 709 (1996), quoting Patterson v McLean Credit Union, 491 US 164, 173 ; 109 S Ct 2363 ; 105 L Ed 2d 132 (1989); Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 278 ; 731 NW2d 41 (2007) (Cavanagh, J., dissenting) (“ ‘Under the doctrine of stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction become precedent whic 2010Absent those changes or compelling evidence bearing on Congress’ original intent... our system demands that we adhere to our prior interpretations of statutes.’ ”), quoting Neal v United States, 516 US 284, 295 ; 116 S Ct 763 ; 133 L Ed 2d 709 (1996), quoting Patterson v McLean Credit Union, 491 US 164, 173 ; 109 S Ct 2363 ; 105 L Ed 2d 132 (1989); Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 278 ; 731 NW2d 41 (2007) (Cavanagh, J., dissenting) (“ ‘Under the doctrine of stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction become precedent whic | 4 | 10 |
Petersen v. Magna Corp.green2 sentences2014As a result, “a stare decisis analysis should always begin with the presumption that upholding the precedent involved is the preferred course of action.” Petersen v Magna Corp, 484 Mich 300, 317 ; 773 NW2d 564 (2009) (opinion by MARILYN KELLY, C.J.). 2014As a result, “a stare decisis analysis should always begin with the presumption that upholding the precedent involved is the preferred course of action.” Petersen v Magna Corp, 484 Mich 300, 317 ; 773 NW2d 564 (2009) (opinion by MARILYN KELLY, C.J.). | 4 | 6 |
Burns v. Olde Discount Corp.green2 sentences2017See Burns v Olde Discount Corp, 212 Mich App 576, 582 ; 538 NW2d 686 (1995) (explaining that “a plurality decision in which no majority of the participating justices agree concerning the reasoning is not binding authority under the doctrine of stare decisis”). -3- 2017See Burns v Olde Discount Corp, 212 Mich App 576, 582 ; 538 NW2d 686 (1995) (explaining that “a plurality decision in which no majority of the participating justices agree concerning the reasoning is not binding authority under the doctrine of stare decisis”). -3- | 4 | 4 |
People v. Jamiesongreen2 sentences2017See People v Jamieson, 436 Mich 61, 79 ; 461 NW2d 884 (1990) (“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction become precedent which should not be lightly departed.”). 2017See People v Jamieson, 436 Mich 61, 79 ; 461 NW2d 884 (1990) (“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction become precedent which should not be lightly departed.”). | 3 | 18 |
Boyd v. W G Wade Showsgreen2 sentences2006The majority in Mazumder seems also to have disregarded the well-established principle that “the doctrine of stare decisis requires [the Court of Appeals] to follow the majority decisions of the [Michigan] Supreme Court, even when [the Court of Appeals] disagreed] with them.” Detroit v Vavro, 177 Mich App 682, 685 ; 442 NW2d 730 (1989); see also Boyd v W G Wade Shows, 443 Mich 515, 523 ; 505 NW2d 544 (1993) (restating the principles that “it is the Supreme Court’s obligation to overrule or modify case law if it becomes obsolete, and until this Court takes such action, the Court of Appeals and 2006The majority in Mazumder seems also to have disregarded the well-established principle that “the doctrine of stare decisis requires [the Court of Appeals] to follow the majority decisions of the [Michigan] Supreme Court, even when [the Court of Appeals] disagreed] with them.” Detroit v Vavro, 177 Mich App 682, 685 ; 442 NW2d 730 (1989); see also Boyd v W G Wade Shows, 443 Mich 515, 523 ; 505 NW2d 544 (1993) (restating the principles that “it is the Supreme Court’s obligation to overrule or modify case law if it becomes obsolete, and until this Court takes such action, the Court of Appeals and | 3 | 6 |
Rowland v. Washtenaw County Road Commissiongreen2 sentences2018And the “doctrine [of stare decisis] is not, to be sure, an imprisonment of reason.” United States v Int’l Boxing Club of NY, 348 US 236, 249 (1955) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). 43 Rowland, 477 Mich at 215 , citing Robinson, 462 Mich at 464-467 . 44 The fact that a party may eventually rely on promissory estoppel or another equitable exception after they make an oral agreement and once litigation has ensued is irrelevant to the stare decisis analysis. 2017Indeed, under the doctrine of stare decisis, “principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction should not be lightly departed.” Brown v Manistee Co Rd Comm, 452 Mich 354, 365 ; 550 NW2d 215 (1996), overruled on other grounds by Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197 (2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 20 |
People v. Gardnergreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 87 ; 753 NW2d 78 (2008) (Kelly, J., dissenting) (“Our decision about whether an earlier case must be overruled should be guided by more than a notion that the case was incorrectly decided.”); Pohutski v City of Allen Park, 465 Mich 675, 712 ; 641 NW2d 219 (2002) (Kelly, J., dissenting) (“[I]f each successive Court, believing its reading is correct and past readings wrong, rejects precedent, then the law will fluctuate from year to year, rendering our jurisprudence dangerously unstable.”); Devillers, supra at 620 (Weaver, J., dissenting) (“Under the doc 2009See, e.g., People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 87 ; 753 NW2d 78 (2008) (Kelly, J., dissenting) (“Our decision about whether an earlier case must be overruled should be guided by more than a notion that the case was incorrectly decided.”); Pohutski v City of Allen Park, 465 Mich 675, 712 ; 641 NW2d 219 (2002) (Kelly, J., dissenting) (“[I]f each successive Court, believing its reading is correct and past readings wrong, rejects precedent, then the law will fluctuate from year to year, rendering our jurisprudence dangerously unstable.”); Devillers, supra at 620 (Weaver, J., dissenting) (“Under the doc | 2 | 3 |
Paige v. City of Sterling Heightsgreen2 sentences2018See Paige v City of Sterling Hts, 476 Mich 495, 524 ; 720 NW2d 219 (2006) (noting that “only” our Supreme “Court has the authority to overrule one of its prior decisions,” and that until it “does so, all lower courts . . . are bound by that prior decision and must follow it even if they believe that it was wrongly decided or has become obsolete”). -5- observations . . . reveal, or should reveal to the reasonably prudent [person], an impending danger. 2018See Paige v City of Sterling Hts, 476 Mich 495, 524 ; 720 NW2d 219 (2006) (noting that “only” our Supreme “Court has the authority to overrule one of its prior decisions,” and that until it “does so, all lower courts . . . are bound by that prior decision and must follow it even if they believe that it was wrongly decided or has become obsolete”). -5- observations . . . reveal, or should reveal to the reasonably prudent [person], an impending danger. | 2 | 2 |
| Hamed v. Wayne Countygreen | 2 | 2 |
| Hubbard v. United Statesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Beachgreen | 2 | 2 |
Patterson v. McLean Credit Unionred2 sentences2010Absent those changes or compelling evidence bearing on Congress’ original intent... our system demands that we adhere to our prior interpretations of statutes.’ ”), quoting Neal v United States, 516 US 284, 295 ; 116 S Ct 763 ; 133 L Ed 2d 709 (1996), quoting Patterson v McLean Credit Union, 491 US 164, 173 ; 109 S Ct 2363 ; 105 L Ed 2d 132 (1989); Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 278 ; 731 NW2d 41 (2007) (Cavanagh, J., dissenting) (“ ‘Under the doctrine of stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction become precedent whic 2010Absent those changes or compelling evidence bearing on Congress’ original intent... our system demands that we adhere to our prior interpretations of statutes.’ ”), quoting Neal v United States, 516 US 284, 295 ; 116 S Ct 763 ; 133 L Ed 2d 709 (1996), quoting Patterson v McLean Credit Union, 491 US 164, 173 ; 109 S Ct 2363 ; 105 L Ed 2d 132 (1989); Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 278 ; 731 NW2d 41 (2007) (Cavanagh, J., dissenting) (“ ‘Under the doctrine of stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction become precedent whic | 1 | 7 |
McCORMICK v. CARRIERgreen2 sentences2024“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, ‘principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction should not be lightly departed.’ ˮ McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180 , 209- 210; 795 NW2d 517 (2010), quoting Brown v Manistee Co Rd Comm, 452 Mich 354, 365 ; 550 NW2d 215 (1996). 2024“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, ‘principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction should not be lightly departed.’ ˮ McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180 , 209- 210; 795 NW2d 517 (2010), quoting Brown v Manistee Co Rd Comm, 452 Mich 354, 365 ; 550 NW2d 215 (1996). | 1 | 6 |
Parker v. Port Huron Hospitalgreen2 sentences2014Further, were we to find that the common-law rule applies in Michigan, and that it has been applied without regard to whether a party is affected positively or negatively, we then would face the dilemma of whether to, “listlessly” or not, follow the caselaw that has preceded us, under the long-standing doctrine of stare decisis, see Parker v Port Huron Hosp, 361 Mich 1, 10 ; 105 NW2d 1 (1960), and we would plunge into the age-old debate about when, if at all, the courts should change the common law. 2014Further, were we to find that the common-law rule applies in Michigan, and that it has been applied without regard to whether a party is affected positively or negatively, we then would face the dilemma of whether to, “listlessly” or not, follow the caselaw that has preceded us, under the long-standing doctrine of stare decisis, see Parker v Port Huron Hosp, 361 Mich 1, 10 ; 105 NW2d 1 (1960), and we would plunge into the age-old debate about when, if at all, the courts should change the common law. | 1 | 4 |
Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co.green2 sentences2000Although the doctrine of stare decisis is not an “inexorable command,” Burnet v Coronado Oil & Gas Co, 285 US 393, 405 [ 52 S Ct 443 ; 76 L Ed 815 ] (1932) (Brandéis, J., dissenting), this Court has repeatedly stressed that fidelity to precedent is fundamental to “a society governed by the rule of law,” Akron v Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc, 462 US 416, 420 [ 103 S Ct 2481 ; 76 L Ed 2d 687 ] (1983). 2000Although the doctrine of stare decisis is not an “inexorable command,” Burnet v Coronado Oil & Gas Co, 285 US 393, 405 [ 52 S Ct 443 ; 76 L Ed 815 ] (1932) (Brandéis, J., dissenting), this Court has repeatedly stressed that fidelity to precedent is fundamental to “a society governed by the rule of law,” Akron v Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc, 462 US 416, 420 [ 103 S Ct 2481 ; 76 L Ed 2d 687 ] (1983). | 1 | 4 |
Abendschein v. Farrellgreen2 sentences2000First, the majority relied on the doctrine of stare decisis, observing that "`in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.'" Li, supra at 591, n. 7 , 456 N.W.2d 55 , quoting Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406 , 52 S.Ct. 443 , 76 L.Ed. 815 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), as quoted in Abendschein v. Farrell, 382 Mich. 510, 517 , 170 N.W.2d 137 (1969). 2000First, the majority relied on the doctrine of stare decisis, observing that "`in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.'" Li, supra at 591, n. 7 , 456 N.W.2d 55 , quoting Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406 , 52 S.Ct. 443 , 76 L.Ed. 815 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), as quoted in Abendschein v. Farrell, 382 Mich. 510, 517 , 170 N.W.2d 137 (1969). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Andersonred2 sentences1992Negri v Slotkin, 397 Mich 105, 109-110 ; 244 NW2d 98 (1976); People v Anderson, 389 Mich 155, 170-171 ; 205 NW2d 461 (1973). 1992Negri v Slotkin, 397 Mich 105, 109-110 ; 244 NW2d 98 (1976); People v Anderson, 389 Mich 155, 170-171 ; 205 NW2d 461 (1973). | 1 | 3 |
Yankee Springs Township v. Foxgreen2 sentences2025See Twp of Yankee Springs v Fox, 264 Mich App 604 , 614 n 1; 692 NW2d 728 (2004) (“[N]otwithstanding the doctrine of stare decisis, a rule of law from a case that is factually distinguishable may not be binding on a different set of facts . . . .”); Topps-Toeller, Inc v Lansing, 47 Mich App 720, 729 ; 209 NW2d 843 (1973) (recognizing that stare decisis is “inapplicable when confronted with essentially different facts”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025See Twp of Yankee Springs v Fox, 264 Mich App 604 , 614 n 1; 692 NW2d 728 (2004) (“[N]otwithstanding the doctrine of stare decisis, a rule of law from a case that is factually distinguishable may not be binding on a different set of facts . . . .”); Topps-Toeller, Inc v Lansing, 47 Mich App 720, 729 ; 209 NW2d 843 (1973) (recognizing that stare decisis is “inapplicable when confronted with essentially different facts”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
| Wold Architects and Engineers v. Stratgreen | 1 | 2 |
| COOPER EX REL. COOPER v. Wadegreen | 1 | 2 |
| Swickard v. Wayne County Medical Examinergreen | 1 | 2 |
| Rory v. Continental Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rory v. Continental Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Blockburger v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Trakhtenberggreen | 1 | 1 |
| People of Michigan v. Jason Charles Robargreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Spectrum Health Hospitals v. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins Co of Michigangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Associated Builders and Contractors v. City of Lansinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| WA FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSP. v. City of Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Woodman v. Kera LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pohutski v. City of Allen Park
green
2 sentences2010Pohutski v City of Allen Park, 465 Mich 675, 712 ; 641 NW2d 219 (2002) (Kelly, J., dissenting) (“[I]f each successive Court, believing its reading is correct and past readings wrong, rejects precedent, then the law will fluctuate from year to year, rendering our jurisprudence dangerously unstable.”); Devillers, supra at 620 (WEAVER, J., dissenting) (“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, it is necessary to follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation.”); Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 278 ; 731 NW2d 41 (2007) (Cavanagh, J., dissenting) (“Under 2010Pohutski v City of Allen Park, 465 Mich 675, 712 ; 641 NW2d 219 (2002) (Kelly, J., dissenting) (“[I]f each successive Court, believing its reading is correct and past readings wrong, rejects precedent, then the law will fluctuate from year to year, rendering our jurisprudence dangerously unstable.”); Devillers, supra at 620 (WEAVER, J., dissenting) (“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, it is necessary to follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation.”); Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 278 ; 731 NW2d 41 (2007) (Cavanagh, J., dissenting) (“Under | 5 | 2005–2010 |
Neal v. United States
green
2 sentences2010Absent those changes or compelling evidence bearing on Congress’ original intent... our system demands that we adhere to our prior interpretations of statutes.’ ”), quoting Neal v United States, 516 US 284, 295 ; 116 S Ct 763 ; 133 L Ed 2d 709 (1996), quoting Patterson v McLean Credit Union, 491 US 164, 173 ; 109 S Ct 2363 ; 105 L Ed 2d 132 (1989); Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 278 ; 731 NW2d 41 (2007) (Cavanagh, J., dissenting) (“ ‘Under the doctrine of stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction become precedent whic 2010Absent those changes or compelling evidence bearing on Congress’ original intent... our system demands that we adhere to our prior interpretations of statutes.’ ”), quoting Neal v United States, 516 US 284, 295 ; 116 S Ct 763 ; 133 L Ed 2d 709 (1996), quoting Patterson v McLean Credit Union, 491 US 164, 173 ; 109 S Ct 2363 ; 105 L Ed 2d 132 (1989); Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 278 ; 731 NW2d 41 (2007) (Cavanagh, J., dissenting) (“ ‘Under the doctrine of stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction become precedent whic | 4 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1994A fourth justice joined in the "rationale and result" of the plurality opinion "with the understanding that it does not preclude the application" of the highway exception "in cases alleging a failure to `repair and maintain' installations that are integral to, if not part of, the `improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel,' such as traffic lights and signs." [6] "Since neither opinion [in Scheurman ] obtained four signatures, neither is binding under the doctrine of stare decisis." People v Jackson, 390 Mich 621, 627 ; 212 NW2d 918 (1973). [7] B Even if four justices had un 1994A fourth justice joined in the "rationale and result" of the plurality opinion "with the understanding that it does not preclude the application" of the highway exception "in cases alleging a failure to `repair and maintain' installations that are integral to, if not part of, the `improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel,' such as traffic lights and signs." [6] "Since neither opinion [in Scheurman ] obtained four signatures, neither is binding under the doctrine of stare decisis." People v Jackson, 390 Mich 621, 627 ; 212 NW2d 918 (1973). [7] B Even if four justices had un | 4 | 1982–1995 |
Catalina Marketing Sales Corp. v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences2020Catalina Mktg Sales Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 470 Mich 13, 23 ; 678 NW2d 619 (2004); MCR 7.215(C)(2). 2020Catalina Mktg Sales Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 470 Mich 13, 23 ; 678 NW2d 619 (2004); MCR 7.215(C)(2). | 3 | 2019–2020 |
Payne v. Tennessee
green
2 sentences2014The United States Supreme Court has explained that the doctrine of stare decisis “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v Tennessee, 501 US 808, 827 ; 111 S Ct 2597 ; 115 L Ed 2d 720 (1991). 2014The United States Supreme Court has explained that the doctrine of stare decisis “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v Tennessee, 501 US 808, 827 ; 111 S Ct 2597 ; 115 L Ed 2d 720 (1991). | 3 | 2010–2014 |
Cassidy v. McGovern
red
2 sentences2007Advisory opinions are not precedentially binding under the doctrine of stare decisis. 18 Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1975 PA 227 , 396 Mich 465 ; 242 NW2d 3 (1976); Cassidy v McGovern, 415 Mich 483 ; 330 NW2d 22 (1982), “modified” on other grounds DiFranco v Pickard, 427 Mich 32, 58 ; 398 NW2d 896 (1986). 2007Advisory opinions are not precedentially binding under the doctrine of stare decisis. 18 Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1975 PA 227 , 396 Mich 465 ; 242 NW2d 3 (1976); Cassidy v McGovern, 415 Mich 483 ; 330 NW2d 22 (1982), “modified” on other grounds DiFranco v Pickard, 427 Mich 32, 58 ; 398 NW2d 896 (1986). | 3 | 1984–2007 |
Hutson v. City of Royal Oak
green
2 sentences1982Being bound by the doctrine of stare decisis, Hutson v Royal Oak, 28 Mich App 393, 395 ; 184 NW2d 558 (1970), we reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. *376 Defendant also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that evidence of two of defendant’s five prior convictions would be admissible at defendant’s trial. 1982Being bound by the doctrine of stare decisis, Hutson v Royal Oak, 28 Mich App 393, 395 ; 184 NW2d 558 (1970), we reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. *376 Defendant also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that evidence of two of defendant’s five prior convictions would be admissible at defendant’s trial. | 3 | 1982–1982 |
Topps-Toeller, Inc v. City of Lansing
green
2 sentences2025See Twp of Yankee Springs v Fox, 264 Mich App 604 , 614 n 1; 692 NW2d 728 (2004) (“[N]otwithstanding the doctrine of stare decisis, a rule of law from a case that is factually distinguishable may not be binding on a different set of facts . . . .”); Topps-Toeller, Inc v Lansing, 47 Mich App 720, 729 ; 209 NW2d 843 (1973) (recognizing that stare decisis is “inapplicable when confronted with essentially different facts”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025See Twp of Yankee Springs v Fox, 264 Mich App 604 , 614 n 1; 692 NW2d 728 (2004) (“[N]otwithstanding the doctrine of stare decisis, a rule of law from a case that is factually distinguishable may not be binding on a different set of facts . . . .”); Topps-Toeller, Inc v Lansing, 47 Mich App 720, 729 ; 209 NW2d 843 (1973) (recognizing that stare decisis is “inapplicable when confronted with essentially different facts”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 1986–2025 |
Weaver v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences2022Although the majority opinion recognizes that “not every public-trial violation will in fact lead to a fundamentally unfair trial,” Weaver, 582 US at ___; 137 S Ct at 1911 , it fails to give due 7 This Court now adopts the dissent’s theory in Cain and overrules Vaughn’s application of the plain-error standard for unpreserved structural errors without any mention of the doctrine of stare decisis. 21 weight to this principle in its articulation of its rebuttable presumption under the fourth Carines prong. 2022Although the majority opinion recognizes that “not every public-trial violation will in fact lead to a fundamentally unfair trial,” Weaver, 582 US at ___; 137 S Ct at 1911 , it fails to give due 7 This Court now adopts the dissent’s theory in Cain and overrules Vaughn’s application of the plain-error standard for unpreserved structural errors without any mention of the doctrine of stare decisis. 21 weight to this principle in its articulation of its rebuttable presumption under the fourth Carines prong. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Lansing Schools Education Ass'n v. Lansing Board of Education
green
2 sentences2018“Under the longstanding doctrine of stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction should not be lightly departed.” Lansing Sch Ed Ass'n v Lansing Bd of Ed, 487 Mich 349, 366 ; 792 NW2d 686 (2010). 2018“Under the longstanding doctrine of stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction should not be lightly departed.” Lansing Sch Ed Ass'n v Lansing Bd of Ed, 487 Mich 349, 366 ; 792 NW2d 686 (2010). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Mungo
green
2 sentences2018“Under the longstanding doctrine of stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction should not be lightly departed.” Lansing Sch Ed Ass'n v Lansing Bd of Ed, 487 Mich 349, 366 ; 792 NW2d 686 (2010). 2018“Under the longstanding doctrine of stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction should not be lightly departed.” Lansing Sch Ed Ass'n v Lansing Bd of Ed, 487 Mich 349, 366 ; 792 NW2d 686 (2010). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| Wilcoxon v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. green | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| In re Moiles green | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| Karaczewski v. Farbman Stein & Co. green | 2 | 2008–2010 |
| People v. Hawkins; People v. Scherf green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Hawkins green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Hall green | 2 | 2004–2008 |
| DiFranco v. Pickard red | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1975 PA 227 green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 2 | 1967–2006 |
| Summers v. City of Detroit green | 2 | 1995–2005 |
| Li v. Feldt green | 2 | 2000–2000 |
| Sommers v. City of Flint green | 2 | 1967–2000 |
| McEvoy v. City of Sault Ste. Marie green | 2 | 1991–1998 |
| Breckon v. Franklin Fuel Co. green | 2 | 1985–1994 |
| Department of the Air Force v. Rose green | 2 | 1985–1991 |
| People v. Mitchell green | 2 | 1991–1991 |
| Kinner v. Spencer green | 2 | 1943–1943 |
| Meyering Land Co. v. Spencer green | 2 | 1943–1943 |
| Clinton v. Spencer green | 2 | 1943–1943 |
| People v. Hall green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Rivera green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Elher v. Misra green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Todd v. Nobach neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| United States v. Knights green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Stewart green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Dean v. Childs red | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Shelby Baumgartner v. Perry Public Schools green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Beals v. Michigan green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.