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.
22 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Franks v. Delawaregreen2 sentences2022If a criminal defendant challenges the veracity of a warrant affidavit and requests a Franks hearing, the Fourth Amendment requires the trial court to grant the request if “the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause[.]” Id. at 155-156 . 2022If a criminal defendant challenges the veracity of a warrant affidavit and requests a Franks hearing, the Fourth Amendment requires the trial court to grant the request if “the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause[.]” Id. at 155-156 . | 4 | 13 |
People v. Martingreen2 sentences2018A. STANDARD OF REVIEW Just as we generally review a trial court’s decision regarding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion, People v Franklin, 500 Mich 92 , 100; 894 NW2d 561 (2017), we also review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision whether to grant a Franks hearing when the validity of a search warrant’s affidavit is challenged, People v Martin, 271 Mich App 280, 309 ; 721 NW2d 815 (2006), aff’d 482 Mich 851 (2008). 2018A. STANDARD OF REVIEW Just as we generally review a trial court’s decision regarding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion, People v Franklin, 500 Mich 92 , 100; 894 NW2d 561 (2017), we also review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision whether to grant a Franks hearing when the validity of a search warrant’s affidavit is challenged, People v Martin, 271 Mich App 280, 309 ; 721 NW2d 815 (2006), aff’d 482 Mich 851 (2008). | 4 | 10 |
People v. Ulmangreen2 sentences2017Finally, when determining whether a Franks hearing is required, any invalid portions of the affidavit may be severed, Ulman, 244 Mich App at 510 ; and “if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required,” Franks, 438 US at 171-172 . 2017Finally, when determining whether a Franks hearing is required, any invalid portions of the affidavit may be severed, Ulman, 244 Mich App at 510 ; and “if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required,” Franks, 438 US at 171-172 . | 3 | 5 |
People v. Poindextergreen2 sentences1981The Franks rule was also applied in People v Poindexter, 90 Mich App 599, 605 ; 282 NW2d 411 (1979). 1981The Franks rule was also applied in People v Poindexter, 90 Mich App 599, 605 ; 282 NW2d 411 (1979). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Jordangreen2 sentences2017TRIAL COURT DISCRETION In accordance with Franks, Michigan requires trial courts to dispense with the offending parts of a search warrant affidavit when, at a Franks hearing, a defendant demonstrates “by a preponderance of the evidence that [the affiant] recklessly or intentionally made false statements in the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based.” People v Reid, 420 Mich 326, 336 ; 362 NW2d 655 (1984). 2017TRIAL COURT DISCRETION In accordance with Franks, Michigan requires trial courts to dispense with the offending parts of a search warrant affidavit when, at a Franks hearing, a defendant demonstrates “by a preponderance of the evidence that [the affiant] recklessly or intentionally made false statements in the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based.” People v Reid, 420 Mich 326, 336 ; 362 NW2d 655 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Wardgreen2 sentences1986See People v Poindexter, 90 Mich App 599 ; 282 NW2d 411 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 876 (1979); People v Williams, 134 *228 Mich App 639; 351 NW2d 878 (1984); People v Howey, 118 Mich App 431 ; 325 NW2d 451 (1982), lv den 418 Mich 882 (1983); People v Ward, 107 Mich App 38 ; 308 NW2d 664 (1981), lv den 417 Mich 938 (1983). 1986See People v Poindexter, 90 Mich App 599 ; 282 NW2d 411 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 876 (1979); People v Williams, 134 *228 Mich App 639; 351 NW2d 878 (1984); People v Howey, 118 Mich App 431 ; 325 NW2d 451 (1982), lv den 418 Mich 882 (1983); People v Ward, 107 Mich App 38 ; 308 NW2d 664 (1981), lv den 417 Mich 938 (1983). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Mason McMurtreygreen2 sentences2018Compare, e.g., United States v McMurtrey, 704 F3d 502, 508 (CA 7, 2013) (applying clear error review to “the district court’s denial of the defendant’s request for a Franks hearing” but stating further that although the “clear error inquiry is factually based and requires . . . giv[ing] particular deference to the district court, any legal determinations that factor into the court’s ruling are reviewed de novo”), with United States v Barsoum, 763 F3d 1321, 1328 (CA 11, 2014) (adopting the abuse of discretion standard of review for evaluating a district court’s denial of a Franks hearing but st 2018Compare, e.g., United States v McMurtrey, 704 F3d 502, 508 (CA 7, 2013) (applying clear error review to “the district court’s denial of the defendant’s request for a Franks hearing” but stating further that although the “clear error inquiry is factually based and requires . . . giv[ing] particular deference to the district court, any legal determinations that factor into the court’s ruling are reviewed de novo”), with United States v Barsoum, 763 F3d 1321, 1328 (CA 11, 2014) (adopting the abuse of discretion standard of review for evaluating a district court’s denial of a Franks hearing but st | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ihab Steve Barsoumgreen2 sentences2018Compare, e.g., United States v McMurtrey, 704 F3d 502, 508 (CA 7, 2013) (applying clear error review to “the district court’s denial of the defendant’s request for a Franks hearing” but stating further that although the “clear error inquiry is factually based and requires . . . giv[ing] particular deference to the district court, any legal determinations that factor into the court’s ruling are reviewed de novo”), with United States v Barsoum, 763 F3d 1321, 1328 (CA 11, 2014) (adopting the abuse of discretion standard of review for evaluating a district court’s denial of a Franks hearing but st 2018Compare, e.g., United States v McMurtrey, 704 F3d 502, 508 (CA 7, 2013) (applying clear error review to “the district court’s denial of the defendant’s request for a Franks hearing” but stating further that although the “clear error inquiry is factually based and requires . . . giv[ing] particular deference to the district court, any legal determinations that factor into the court’s ruling are reviewed de novo”), with United States v Barsoum, 763 F3d 1321, 1328 (CA 11, 2014) (adopting the abuse of discretion standard of review for evaluating a district court’s denial of a Franks hearing but st | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stanawaygreen2 sentences2016See Stanaway, 446 Mich at 687-688 .4 Finally, defendant requests in the alternative that this Court remand the case to the trial court for a Ginther hearing. 2016See Stanaway, 446 Mich at 687-688 .4 Finally, defendant requests in the alternative that this Court remand the case to the trial court for a Ginther hearing. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stumpfgreen2 sentences2006A defendant is entitled to a hearing to challenge the validity of a search warrant if he “makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause....” Franks, supra at 155-156 ; see also Stumpf, supra at 224 . 2006A defendant is entitled to a hearing to challenge the validity of a search warrant if he “makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause....” Franks, supra at 155-156 ; see also Stumpf, supra at 224 . | 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. Ericksen
green
2 sentences2018“Failing to advance a meritless argument or raise a futile objection does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010). 2018“Failing to advance a meritless argument or raise a futile objection does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Russell
green
2 sentences2022But because Beacham did not request a Franks hearing, the trial court never addressed 8 Beacham does not identify what “discoverable information” defense counsel failed to obtain. 9 “Decisions regarding whether to call or question witnesses are presumed to be matters of trial strategy.” People v Russell, 297 Mich App 707, 716 ; 825 NW2d 623 (2012). 2022But because Beacham did not request a Franks hearing, the trial court never addressed 8 Beacham does not identify what “discoverable information” defense counsel failed to obtain. 9 “Decisions regarding whether to call or question witnesses are presumed to be matters of trial strategy.” People v Russell, 297 Mich App 707, 716 ; 825 NW2d 623 (2012). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Abela v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2018Nonetheless, lower federal court decisions may be persuasive but “are not binding on state courts.” Abela v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 603, 607 ; 677 NW2d 325 (2004). -2- The United States and Michigan Constitutions both require, in relevant part, that a search warrant be based on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. 2018Nonetheless, lower federal court decisions may be persuasive but “are not binding on state courts.” Abela v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 603, 607 ; 677 NW2d 325 (2004). -2- The United States and Michigan Constitutions both require, in relevant part, that a search warrant be based on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Pirgu v. United Services Automobile Association
green
2 sentences2018People v Franklin, 500 Mich 92 , 100; 894 NW2d 561 (2017). “ ‘A trial court necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.’ ” Id., quoting Pirgu v United Servs Auto Ass’n, 499 Mich 269, 274 ; 884 NW2d 257 (2016). 2018People v Franklin, 500 Mich 92 , 100; 894 NW2d 561 (2017). “ ‘A trial court necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.’ ” Id., quoting Pirgu v United Servs Auto Ass’n, 499 Mich 269, 274 ; 884 NW2d 257 (2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Jenkins
neutral
1 sentence2016More importantly, assuming that Hession’s failure to file an interlocutory appeal constituted performance below an objective level of competence, Jenkins, 99 Mich App at 519 , defendant cannot show that he was prejudiced, Reinhardt, 167 Mich App at 591 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Reinhardt
green
1 sentence2016More importantly, assuming that Hession’s failure to file an interlocutory appeal constituted performance below an objective level of competence, Jenkins, 99 Mich App at 519 , defendant cannot show that he was prejudiced, Reinhardt, 167 Mich App at 591 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Hoag
green
2 sentences2016Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim is unpreserved because he did not raise this claim in his motion for a new trial, see People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 232 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008), nor did he make a timely request for an evidentiary hearing, People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 6 ; 594 NW2d 57 (1999). 2016Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim is unpreserved because he did not raise this claim in his motion for a new trial, see People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 232 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008), nor did he make a timely request for an evidentiary hearing, People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 6 ; 594 NW2d 57 (1999). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Mayes
green
2 sentences2016An informant’s reliability and credibility are established where, as here, the affiant states that the informant has given reliable information in the past, and that he personally purchased cocaine from defendant.2 People v Mayes, 78 Mich App 618, 622 ; 261 NW2d 22 (1977). 2016An informant’s reliability and credibility are established where, as here, the affiant states that the informant has given reliable information in the past, and that he personally purchased cocaine from defendant.2 People v Mayes, 78 Mich App 618, 622 ; 261 NW2d 22 (1977). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Unger
green
2 sentences2016Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim is unpreserved because he did not raise this claim in his motion for a new trial, see People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 232 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008), nor did he make a timely request for an evidentiary hearing, People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 6 ; 594 NW2d 57 (1999). 2016Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim is unpreserved because he did not raise this claim in his motion for a new trial, see People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 232 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008), nor did he make a timely request for an evidentiary hearing, People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 6 ; 594 NW2d 57 (1999). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Mullen
green
2 sentences2016People v Mullen, 1 Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154, 155-156 ; 98 S Ct 2674 ; 57 L Ed 2d 667 (1978). -6- 282 Mich App 14, 22 ; 762 NW2d 170 (2008). 2016People v Mullen, 1 Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154, 155-156 ; 98 S Ct 2674 ; 57 L Ed 2d 667 (1978). -6- 282 Mich App 14, 22 ; 762 NW2d 170 (2008). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Petri
green
2 sentences2016Under the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), “a lawyer generally cannot simultaneously be a witness and an advocate at trial.” People v Petri, 279 Mich -9- App 407, 417; 760 NW2d 882 (2008), citing MRPC 3.7(a). 2016Under the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), “a lawyer generally cannot simultaneously be a witness and an advocate at trial.” People v Petri, 279 Mich -9- App 407, 417; 760 NW2d 882 (2008), citing MRPC 3.7(a). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Horn
green
2 sentences2016We reiterate, first, that we need not consider defendant’s appellate affidavit, see People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 38 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008), and defendant’s current argument is thus inadequately supported. 2016We reiterate, first, that we need not consider defendant’s appellate affidavit, see People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 38 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008), and defendant’s current argument is thus inadequately supported. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Price
green
2 sentences1986And the Michigan Supreme Court has given its approval to the Franks standard by remanding the case of People v Price, 86 Mich App 641 ; 273 NW2d 97 (1978), for reconsideration in light of the Franks decision. 406 Mich 881 (1979). 1986And the Michigan Supreme Court has given its approval to the Franks standard by remanding the case of People v Price, 86 Mich App 641 ; 273 NW2d 97 (1978), for reconsideration in light of the Franks decision. 406 Mich 881 (1979). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Howey
neutral
2 sentences1986See People v Poindexter, 90 Mich App 599 ; 282 NW2d 411 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 876 (1979); People v Williams, 134 *228 Mich App 639; 351 NW2d 878 (1984); People v Howey, 118 Mich App 431 ; 325 NW2d 451 (1982), lv den 418 Mich 882 (1983); People v Ward, 107 Mich App 38 ; 308 NW2d 664 (1981), lv den 417 Mich 938 (1983). 1986See People v Poindexter, 90 Mich App 599 ; 282 NW2d 411 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 876 (1979); People v Williams, 134 *228 Mich App 639; 351 NW2d 878 (1984); People v Howey, 118 Mich App 431 ; 325 NW2d 451 (1982), lv den 418 Mich 882 (1983); People v Ward, 107 Mich App 38 ; 308 NW2d 664 (1981), lv den 417 Mich 938 (1983). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences1986See People v Poindexter, 90 Mich App 599 ; 282 NW2d 411 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 876 (1979); People v Williams, 134 *228 Mich App 639; 351 NW2d 878 (1984); People v Howey, 118 Mich App 431 ; 325 NW2d 451 (1982), lv den 418 Mich 882 (1983); People v Ward, 107 Mich App 38 ; 308 NW2d 664 (1981), lv den 417 Mich 938 (1983). 1986See People v Poindexter, 90 Mich App 599 ; 282 NW2d 411 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 876 (1979); People v Williams, 134 *228 Mich App 639; 351 NW2d 878 (1984); People v Howey, 118 Mich App 431 ; 325 NW2d 451 (1982), lv den 418 Mich 882 (1983); People v Ward, 107 Mich App 38 ; 308 NW2d 664 (1981), lv den 417 Mich 938 (1983). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Price
green
2 sentences1982See People v Ward, 107 Mich App 38, 52-53 ; 308 NW2d 664 (1981); People v Poindexter, 90 Mich App 599 ; 282 NW2d 411 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 876 (1979); People v Price (On Remand), 91 Mich App 328 ; 283 NW2d 736 (1979). 1982See People v Ward, 107 Mich App 38, 52-53 ; 308 NW2d 664 (1981); People v Poindexter, 90 Mich App 599 ; 282 NW2d 411 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 876 (1979); People v Price (On Remand), 91 Mich App 328 ; 283 NW2d 736 (1979). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1981NOTES [1] Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 ; 88 S Ct 1868 ; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968). [2] In People v Beavers, 393 Mich 554, 580 ; 227 NW2d 511 (1975), Chief Justice COLEMAN, dissenting, indicated that participant monitoring was no worse than viewing a premises through binoculars. 1981NOTES [1] Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 ; 88 S Ct 1868 ; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968). [2] In People v Beavers, 393 Mich 554, 580 ; 227 NW2d 511 (1975), Chief Justice COLEMAN, dissenting, indicated that participant monitoring was no worse than viewing a premises through binoculars. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Beavers
green
2 sentences1981NOTES [1] Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 ; 88 S Ct 1868 ; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968). [2] In People v Beavers, 393 Mich 554, 580 ; 227 NW2d 511 (1975), Chief Justice COLEMAN, dissenting, indicated that participant monitoring was no worse than viewing a premises through binoculars. 1981NOTES [1] Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 ; 88 S Ct 1868 ; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968). [2] In People v Beavers, 393 Mich 554, 580 ; 227 NW2d 511 (1975), Chief Justice COLEMAN, dissenting, indicated that participant monitoring was no worse than viewing a premises through binoculars. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Daniels v. Allen Industries, Inc
green
2 sentences1976Therefore, we hold that the "good cause” requirement of Utley has been satisfied and plaintiff has met the Franks standard as adopted by Daniels, supra. Ill While this Court recognizes that the lower court has considerable discretion in granting or denying a motion to produce, we find that the court was in error in denying plaintiffs motion for production of statements and the order denying production is hereby set aside. 1976Therefore, we hold that the "good cause” requirement of Utley has been satisfied and plaintiff has met the Franks standard as adopted by Daniels, supra. Ill While this Court recognizes that the lower court has considerable discretion in granting or denying a motion to produce, we find that the court was in error in denying plaintiffs motion for production of statements and the order denying production is hereby set aside. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.