26 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vodvarka v. Grasmeyergreen2 sentences2023Id. at 508-509 . 2019“These initial steps to changing custody—finding a change of circumstance or proper cause and not changing an established custodial environment without clear and convincing evidence—are intended to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.” Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 509 (quotation marks omitted).4 The first step in the analysis is to determine whether the moving party has established proper cause or a change of circumstances, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard. 3 Simi | 1 | 6 |
People of Michigan v. John Edward Barrittgreen2 sentences2026“As our Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have stated, determining -19- whether an individual’s freedom of movement was curtailed is the first step in the analysis, not the last.” Lewinski, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 6, citing Barritt, 325 Mich App at 580 . 2026However, “determining whether an individual’s freedom of movement was curtailed is the first step in the analysis, not the last.” Id. at 580 . | 1 | 4 |
Howes v. Fieldsgreen2 sentences2020Furthermore, “determining whether an individual’s freedom of movement was curtailed is the first step in the analysis, not the last.” Barritt, 325 Mich App at 580 , citing Elliott, 494 Mich at 308 , and Fields, 565 US at 509 . 2013Even if defendant could show that his freedom of movement was somehow curtailed during the meeting, he still fails to explain how the meeting “present[ed] the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda.” Fields, 565 US at __ ; 132 S Ct at 1189-1190 (“[W]hether an individual’s freedom of movement was curtailed, however, is simply the first step in the analysis, not the last. . . . | 1 | 4 |
People v. Earlgreen2 sentences2022Because the constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment requires that there first be a punishment imposed, the first step in our analysis is to determine whether our Legislature intended the 2021 SORA “as a criminal punishment or a civil remedy,” and, if it was intended as a civil remedy, “whether the statutory scheme was so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the State’s intention to deem it civil.” People v Earl, 495 Mich 33, 38 ; 845 NW2d 721 (2014). 3. 2022Because the constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment requires that there first be a punishment imposed, the first step in our analysis is to determine whether our Legislature intended the 2021 SORA “as a criminal punishment or a civil remedy,” and, if it was intended as a civil remedy, “whether the statutory scheme was so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the State’s intention to deem it civil.” People v Earl, 495 Mich 33, 38 ; 845 NW2d 721 (2014). 3. | 1 | 2 |
Prado Navarette v. Californiagreen2 sentences2026See Navarettte v California, 572 US 393, 397-398 ; 134 S Ct 1683 ; 188 L Ed 2d 680 (2014). 2026See Navarettte v California, 572 US 393, 397-398 ; 134 S Ct 1683 ; 188 L Ed 2d 680 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2014See Williams, 475 Mich at 261 (“The time for judging whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated runs from the date of [the] defendant’s arrest.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Elliott
green
2 sentences2020Furthermore, “determining whether an individual’s freedom of movement was curtailed is the first step in the analysis, not the last.” Barritt, 325 Mich App at 580 , citing Elliott, 494 Mich at 308 , and Fields, 565 US at 509 . 2019People v Elliott, 494 Mich 292, 311 ; 833 NW2d 284 (2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted). | 4 | 2018–2020 |
Kuznar v. Raksha Corp.
green
2 sentences2009It is undisputed that the action at issue here is such an action, because it “allege[s] an action that (1) occurred within the course of a professional relationship and (2) poses questions of medical judgment outside the realm of common knowledge and experience.” Kuznar v Raksha Corp, 481 Mich 169, 176-177 ; 750 NW2d 121 (2008), citing Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr, Inc, 471 Mich 411, 422 ; 684 NW2d 864 (2004). 2 However, despite the majority’s initial recognition that whether this action is one “alleging medical malpractice” is only the “first step in the analysis” in determining wheth 2009It is undisputed that the action at issue here is such an action, because it “allege[s] an action that (1) occurred within the course of a professional relationship and (2) poses questions of medical judgment outside the realm of common knowledge and experience.” Kuznar v Raksha Corp, 481 Mich 169, 176-177 ; 750 NW2d 121 (2008), citing Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr, Inc, 471 Mich 411, 422 ; 684 NW2d 864 (2004). 2 However, despite the majority’s initial recognition that whether this action is one “alleging medical malpractice” is only the “first step in the analysis” in determining wheth | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc
green
2 sentences2009It is undisputed that the action at issue here is such an action, because it “allege[s] an action that (1) occurred within the course of a professional relationship and (2) poses questions of medical judgment outside the realm of common knowledge and experience.” Kuznar v Raksha Corp, 481 Mich 169, 176-177 ; 750 NW2d 121 (2008), citing Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr, Inc, 471 Mich 411, 422 ; 684 NW2d 864 (2004). 2 However, despite the majority’s initial recognition that whether this action is one “alleging medical malpractice” is only the “first step in the analysis” in determining wheth 2009It is undisputed that the action at issue here is such an action, because it “allege[s] an action that (1) occurred within the course of a professional relationship and (2) poses questions of medical judgment outside the realm of common knowledge and experience.” Kuznar v Raksha Corp, 481 Mich 169, 176-177 ; 750 NW2d 121 (2008), citing Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr, Inc, 471 Mich 411, 422 ; 684 NW2d 864 (2004). 2 However, despite the majority’s initial recognition that whether this action is one “alleging medical malpractice” is only the “first step in the analysis” in determining wheth | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Hinky Dinky Supermarket, Inc. v. Department of Community Health
green
1 sentence2025In claiming a violation of its right to procedural due process, Schindler skips over the first step in the analysis and fails to substantively address or even identify the protected property interest that provides the basis for its claim.14 This is a necessary step in the analysis, see, e.g., Hinky Dinky, 261 Mich App at 605-606 , and it is well established that a party “may not simply announce a position and leave it to this Court to make the party’s arguments and search for authority to support the party’s position,” Seifeddine v Jaber, 327 Mich App 514 , 519; 934 NW2d 64 (2019). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Olson v. Olson
green
1 sentence2025Olson, 256 Mich App at 622 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Robinson v. City of Detroit
green
2 sentences2023Before overruling it, we must also examine “whether the decision . . . defies ‘practical workability,’ whether reliance interests would work an undue hardship, and whether changes in the law or facts no longer justify the questioned decision.” Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 464 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000). 2023Before overruling it, we must also examine “whether the decision . . . defies ‘practical workability,’ whether reliance interests would work an undue hardship, and whether changes in the law or facts no longer justify the questioned decision.” Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 464 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Pierron v. Pierron
green
2 sentences2019“These initial steps to changing custody—finding a change of circumstance or proper cause and not changing an established custodial environment without clear and convincing evidence—are intended to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.” Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 509 (quotation marks omitted).4 The first step in the analysis is to determine whether the moving party has established proper cause or a change of circumstances, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard. 3 Simi 2019“These initial steps to changing custody—finding a change of circumstance or proper cause and not changing an established custodial environment without clear and convincing evidence—are intended to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.” Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 509 (quotation marks omitted).4 The first step in the analysis is to determine whether the moving party has established proper cause or a change of circumstances, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard. 3 Simi | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Corporan v. Henton
green
2 sentences2019“These initial steps to changing custody—finding a change of circumstance or proper cause and not changing an established custodial environment without clear and convincing evidence—are intended to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.” Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 509 (quotation marks omitted).4 The first step in the analysis is to determine whether the moving party has established proper cause or a change of circumstances, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard. 3 Simi 2019“These initial steps to changing custody—finding a change of circumstance or proper cause and not changing an established custodial environment without clear and convincing evidence—are intended to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.” Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 509 (quotation marks omitted).4 The first step in the analysis is to determine whether the moving party has established proper cause or a change of circumstances, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard. 3 Simi | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Briggs Tax Service, LLC v. Detroit Public Schools
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kreiner v. Fischer
red
2 sentences2007Kreiner, supra at 131 . 2007Kreiner, supra at 131 , 683 N.W.2d 611 The court must then determine whether an important body function has been impaired, whether any such impairment is objectively manifested, and, if so, whether the impairment affects the plaintiff's general ability to lead his or her normal life. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Suttles v. Department of Transportation
green
1 sentence2007Having satisfied the first step of the analysis, plaintiffs must further “prove, consistent with traditional negligence principles, the remaining elements of breach, causation, and damages contained within the statute.” Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.