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.
27 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2022 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reetz v. Kinsman Marine Transit Co.green2 sentences1990See generally Reetz v Kinsman Marine Transit Co, 416 Mich 97 ; 330 NW2d 638 (1982). 1990See generally Reetz v Kinsman Marine Transit Co, 416 Mich 97 ; 330 NW2d 638 (1982). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Callon
green
2 sentences2018“Because the alleged error was not preserved by a contemporaneous objection and a request for a curative instruction, appellate review is for plain (outcome-determinative) error.” People v Callon, 256 Mich App 312, 329 ; 662 NW2d 501 (2003). 2018“Because the alleged error was not preserved by a contemporaneous objection and a request for a curative instruction, appellate review is for plain (outcome-determinative) error.” People v Callon, 256 Mich App 312, 329 ; 662 NW2d 501 (2003). | 10 | 2017–2022 |
People v. Bennett
green
2 sentences2018This Court utilizes the plain error test articulated in Carines: “Reversal is warranted only when plain error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Bennett, 290 Mich App at 475-476 , quoting Callon, 256 Mich App at 329 . 2018This Court utilizes the plain error test articulated in Carines: “Reversal is warranted only when plain error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Bennett, 290 Mich App at 475-476 , quoting Callon, 256 Mich App at 329 . | 5 | 2015–2018 |
People v. Carines
green
2 sentences2017“To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). 2017“To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). | 5 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Solloway
green
2 sentences2021People v Solloway, 316 Mich App 174, 201 ; 891 NW2d 255 (2016). 2021People v Solloway, 316 Mich App 174, 201 ; 891 NW2d 255 (2016). | 3 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Launsburry
green
2 sentences2021“Absent an objection or a request for a curative instruction, this Court will not review alleged prosecutorial misconduct unless the misconduct is sufficiently egregious that no curative instruction would counteract the prejudice to defendant or unless manifest injustice would result from failure to review the alleged misconduct.” People v Launsburry, 217 Mich App 358, 361 ; 551 NW2d 460 (1996). 2021“Absent an objection or a request for a curative instruction, this Court will not review alleged prosecutorial misconduct unless the misconduct is sufficiently egregious that no curative instruction would counteract the prejudice to defendant or unless manifest injustice would result from failure to review the alleged misconduct.” People v Launsburry, 217 Mich App 358, 361 ; 551 NW2d 460 (1996). | 3 | 1999–2021 |
People v. Brown
green
2 sentences2017“Generally, a claim of prosecutorial misconduct is a constitutional issue that is reviewed de novo, but a trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error.” People v Brown, 279 Mich App 116, 134 ; 755 NW2d 664 (2008). -6- “Because the alleged error was not preserved by a contemporaneous objection and a request for a curative instruction, appellate review is for plain (outcome-determinative) error.” People v Callon, 256 Mich App 312, 329 ; 662 NW2d 501 (2003) (citation omitted). 2017“Generally, a claim of prosecutorial misconduct is a constitutional issue that is reviewed de novo, but a trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error.” People v Brown, 279 Mich App 116, 134 ; 755 NW2d 664 (2008). -6- “Because the alleged error was not preserved by a contemporaneous objection and a request for a curative instruction, appellate review is for plain (outcome-determinative) error.” People v Callon, 256 Mich App 312, 329 ; 662 NW2d 501 (2003) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Grayer
green
2 sentences2021“A prosecutor’s clear misstatement of the law that remains uncorrected may deprive a defendant of a fair trial.” People v Grayer, 252 Mich App 349, 357 ; 651 NW2d 818 (2002). 2021“A prosecutor’s clear misstatement of the law that remains uncorrected may deprive a defendant of a fair trial.” People v Grayer, 252 Mich App 349, 357 ; 651 NW2d 818 (2002). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. Atkinson
green
2 sentences2017“Reversal is warranted only when the plain, forfeited error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or when an error ‘ “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” ’ independent of the defendant’s innocence.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999), quoting United States v Olano, 507 US 725, 736-737 ; 113 S Ct 1770 ; 123 L Ed 2d 508 (1993), quoting United States v Atkinson, 297 US 157, 160 ; 56 S Ct 391 ; 80 L Ed 555 (1936). 2017“Reversal is warranted only when the plain, forfeited error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or when an error ‘ “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” ’ independent of the defendant’s innocence.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999), quoting United States v Olano, 507 US 725, 736-737 ; 113 S Ct 1770 ; 123 L Ed 2d 508 (1993), quoting United States v Atkinson, 297 US 157, 160 ; 56 S Ct 391 ; 80 L Ed 555 (1936). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Olano
green
2 sentences2017“Reversal is warranted only when the plain, forfeited error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or when an error ‘ “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” ’ independent of the defendant’s innocence.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999), quoting United States v Olano, 507 US 725, 736-737 ; 113 S Ct 1770 ; 123 L Ed 2d 508 (1993), quoting United States v Atkinson, 297 US 157, 160 ; 56 S Ct 391 ; 80 L Ed 555 (1936). 2017“Reversal is warranted only when the plain, forfeited error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or when an error ‘ “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” ’ independent of the defendant’s innocence.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999), quoting United States v Olano, 507 US 725, 736-737 ; 113 S Ct 1770 ; 123 L Ed 2d 508 (1993), quoting United States v Atkinson, 297 US 157, 160 ; 56 S Ct 391 ; 80 L Ed 555 (1936). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Ericksen
green
1 sentence2015Ericksen, 288 Mich App at 198 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Unger
green
1 sentence2014Unger, 278 Mich App at 238 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Schutte v. Celotex Corp.
green
2 sentences2009Schutte v. Celotex Corp., 196 Mich.App. 135, 142 , 492 N.W.2d 773 (1992). 2009Schutte v. Celotex Corp., 196 Mich.App. 135, 142 , 492 N.W.2d 773 (1992). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Schutte
green
2 sentences2003People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572, 586 ; 629 NW2d 411 (2001); People v Schutte, 240 Mich App 713, 720 ; 613 NW2d 370 (2000). 2003People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572, 586 ; 629 NW2d 411 (2001); People v Schutte, 240 Mich App 713, 720 ; 613 NW2d 370 (2000). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Watson
green
2 sentences2003People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572, 586 ; 629 NW2d 411 (2001); People v Schutte, 240 Mich App 713, 720 ; 613 NW2d 370 (2000). 2003People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572, 586 ; 629 NW2d 411 (2001); People v Schutte, 240 Mich App 713, 720 ; 613 NW2d 370 (2000). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences1996People v Allen, 201 Mich App 98 ; 505 NW2d 869 (1993); People v Gonzalez, 178 Mich App 526 ; 444 NW2d 228 (1989). 1996People v Allen, 201 Mich App 98 ; 505 NW2d 869 (1993); People v Gonzalez, 178 Mich App 526 ; 444 NW2d 228 (1989). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Allen
green
2 sentences1996People v Allen, 201 Mich App 98 ; 505 NW2d 869 (1993); People v Gonzalez, 178 Mich App 526 ; 444 NW2d 228 (1989). 1996People v Allen, 201 Mich App 98 ; 505 NW2d 869 (1993); People v Gonzalez, 178 Mich App 526 ; 444 NW2d 228 (1989). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Deblauwe
green
2 sentences1977While we agree that it is reversible error to introduce evidence of prior convictions if the defendant has not testified, People v Deblauwe, 60 Mich App 103 ; 230 NW2d 328 (1975), the testimony complained of was a nonresponsive, volunteered statement of a witness that went without objection or a request for a curative instruction. 1977While we agree that it is reversible error to introduce evidence of prior convictions if the defendant has not testified, People v Deblauwe, 60 Mich App 103 ; 230 NW2d 328 (1975), the testimony complained of was a nonresponsive, volunteered statement of a witness that went without objection or a request for a curative instruction. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.