nonexclusive factors in Michigan

2021Finally, the court must consider “all” of the following nonexclusive factors (along with any other relevant factors) “to determine whether an up or down adjustment is appropriate”: (1) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services, (2) the difficulty of the case, i.e., the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (3) the amount in question and the results obtained, (4) the expenses incurred, (5) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, (6) the likeli

2019The Michigan Supreme Court has provided the following nonexclusive factors to guide a trial court in determining the reasonableness of attorney fees: (1) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services, (2) the difficulty of the case, i.e., the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, ­18­ (3) the amount in question and the results obtained, (4) the expenses incurred, (5) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, (6) the likelihood, if apparent to the c

2018The Court of Appeal’s Steanhouse panel identified the following nonexclusive factors as relevant in determining whether a sentence was proportionate: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expression of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. [People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1, 46 ; 880 NW2d 297 (2015) (citations omitted), aff’d in part, rev

2018The Court of Appeal’s Steanhouse panel identified the following nonexclusive factors as relevant in determining whether a sentence was proportionate: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expression of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. [People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1, 46 ; 880 NW2d 297 (2015) (citations omitted), aff’d in part, rev

2021In this case, when the trial court awarded Integrity and General American attorney fees related to the preliminary injunction proceedings, it immediately leapt to a consideration of the reasonableness factors, rather than beginning its inquiry “by determining the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services,” see Smith, 481 Mich at 530 , and it then attempted to use the reasonableness factors to determine reasonable rates for Integrity’s and General American’s attorneys in light of their respective experience, reputation, and abilities.

2018In this case, when the trial court awarded Integrity and General American attorney fees related to the preliminary injunction proceedings, it immediately leapt to a consideration of the reasonableness factors, rather than beginning its inquiry “by determining the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services,” see Smith, 481 Mich at 530 , and it then attempted to use the reasonableness factors to determine reasonable rates for Integrity’s and General American’s attorneys in light of their respective experience, reputation, and abilities.

2025People v Plummer, 229 Mich App 293, 300-301 ; 581 NW2d 753 (1998).

2025People v Plummer, 229 Mich App 293, 300-301 ; 581 NW2d 753 (1998).

2017In determining whether a photographic lineup is unduly suggestive in light of all the surrounding circumstances, courts consider the following nonexclusive factors: “ ‘[T]he opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.’ ” [Id. at 306, quoting Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188, 199-200 ; 93 S Ct 375 ; 34 L Ed 2d 401 (1972).] The Kurylczyk Cou

2017In determining whether a photographic lineup is unduly suggestive in light of all the surrounding circumstances, courts consider the following nonexclusive factors: “ ‘[T]he opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.’ ” [Id. at 306, quoting Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188, 199-200 ; 93 S Ct 375 ; 34 L Ed 2d 401 (1972).] The Kurylczyk Cou

2017The applicable “factors should be weighed or balanced with each other because no one factor is determinative.” Fowler, 254 Mich App at 364 ; see also Grange, 494 Mich at 497 .

2017The applicable “factors should be weighed or balanced with each other because no one factor is determinative.” Fowler, 254 Mich App at 364 ; see also Grange, 494 Mich at 497 .

2017In Workman v Detroit Auto Inter–Ins 4 Hunter’s insurance policy provided PIP coverage to individuals who qualified as the policy holder’s “resident relative.” “Relative” is defined under the policy as “a person related by blood, marriage, or adoption.” “Resident” is defined, in relevant part, as “a person who physically resides in the household of the policy holder named on the Policy Declaration with the intention to continue living there.” The parties do not dispute that Hunter’s insurance policy provided coverage consistent with that required by law under MCL 500.3111 and MCL 500.3114(1). -

2017In Workman v Detroit Auto Inter–Ins 4 Hunter’s insurance policy provided PIP coverage to individuals who qualified as the policy holder’s “resident relative.” “Relative” is defined under the policy as “a person related by blood, marriage, or adoption.” “Resident” is defined, in relevant part, as “a person who physically resides in the household of the policy holder named on the Policy Declaration with the intention to continue living there.” The parties do not dispute that Hunter’s insurance policy provided coverage consistent with that required by law under MCL 500.3111 and MCL 500.3114(1). -

2017In determining whether a photographic lineup is unduly suggestive in light of all the surrounding circumstances, courts consider the following nonexclusive factors: “ ‘[T]he opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.’ ” [Id. at 306, quoting Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188, 199-200 ; 93 S Ct 375 ; 34 L Ed 2d 401 (1972).] The Kurylczyk Cou

2017In determining whether a photographic lineup is unduly suggestive in light of all the surrounding circumstances, courts consider the following nonexclusive factors: “ ‘[T]he opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.’ ” [Id. at 306, quoting Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188, 199-200 ; 93 S Ct 375 ; 34 L Ed 2d 401 (1972).] The Kurylczyk Cou

2017In Workman v Detroit Auto Inter–Ins 4 Hunter’s insurance policy provided PIP coverage to individuals who qualified as the policy holder’s “resident relative.” “Relative” is defined under the policy as “a person related by blood, marriage, or adoption.” “Resident” is defined, in relevant part, as “a person who physically resides in the household of the policy holder named on the Policy Declaration with the intention to continue living there.” The parties do not dispute that Hunter’s insurance policy provided coverage consistent with that required by law under MCL 500.3111 and MCL 500.3114(1). -

2017In Workman v Detroit Auto Inter–Ins 4 Hunter’s insurance policy provided PIP coverage to individuals who qualified as the policy holder’s “resident relative.” “Relative” is defined under the policy as “a person related by blood, marriage, or adoption.” “Resident” is defined, in relevant part, as “a person who physically resides in the household of the policy holder named on the Policy Declaration with the intention to continue living there.” The parties do not dispute that Hunter’s insurance policy provided coverage consistent with that required by law under MCL 500.3111 and MCL 500.3114(1). -

2017In Workman v Detroit Auto Inter–Ins 4 Hunter’s insurance policy provided PIP coverage to individuals who qualified as the policy holder’s “resident relative.” “Relative” is defined under the policy as “a person related by blood, marriage, or adoption.” “Resident” is defined, in relevant part, as “a person who physically resides in the household of the policy holder named on the Policy Declaration with the intention to continue living there.” The parties do not dispute that Hunter’s insurance policy provided coverage consistent with that required by law under MCL 500.3111 and MCL 500.3114(1). -

2017In Workman v Detroit Auto Inter–Ins 4 Hunter’s insurance policy provided PIP coverage to individuals who qualified as the policy holder’s “resident relative.” “Relative” is defined under the policy as “a person related by blood, marriage, or adoption.” “Resident” is defined, in relevant part, as “a person who physically resides in the household of the policy holder named on the Policy Declaration with the intention to continue living there.” The parties do not dispute that Hunter’s insurance policy provided coverage consistent with that required by law under MCL 500.3111 and MCL 500.3114(1). -

2017The Steanhouse Court identified the following nonexclusive factors as relevant in determining a proportionate sentence: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. [Id. at 46 (citations omitted).] -1- Although the Court in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 391-392 ; 870 NW2d 502 (2015), severed

2017The Steanhouse Court identified the following nonexclusive factors as relevant in determining a proportionate sentence: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. [Id. at 46 (citations omitted).] -1- Although the Court in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 391-392 ; 870 NW2d 502 (2015), severed

1989People v Johnson, 93 Mich App 667 ; 287 NW2d 311 (1979).

1989People v Johnson, 93 Mich App 667 ; 287 NW2d 311 (1979).

2025This court’s opinion in Shawl v Spence Bros, Inc, 280 Mich App 213 ; 760 NW2d 674 (2008), sets forth the various nonexclusive factors courts may consider in examining whether “good cause” or a “meritorious defense” exist.

2025This court’s opinion in Shawl v Spence Bros, Inc, 280 Mich App 213 ; 760 NW2d 674 (2008), sets forth the various nonexclusive factors courts may consider in examining whether “good cause” or a “meritorious defense” exist.

2024Reynolds, 222 Mich App at 30 .

1987People v Johnson, 93 Mich App 667 ; 287 NW2d 311 (1979). *309 For other nonexclusive factors, see People v Conklin, supra .