goal instruction in Michigan

2020People v Hardin, 421 Mich 296, 314 ; 365 NW2d 101 (1984).

2020People v Hardin, 421 Mich 296, 314 ; 365 NW2d 101 (1984).

2024“The goal of the clause is notice, not restriction of legislation.” Id.

2020“The goal of the clause is notice, not restriction of legislation.” Pohutski, 465 Mich at 691 .

2025“If the charge has the effect of It has been replaced by MCR 2.513, which combines the general rules for both civil and criminal jury trials. 6 People v Joseph, 114 Mich App 70, 74-75 ; 318 NW2d 609 (1982) (finding no error when the trial court twice instructed the jury to continue deliberations but also informed the jury they could request the rereading of the testimony again if necessary); People v Robbins, 132 Mich App 616, 620-621 ; 347 NW2d 765 (1984) (finding no error when the trial court instructed the jury to continue attempting to discuss and resolve any problems without the requested

2025“If the charge has the effect of It has been replaced by MCR 2.513, which combines the general rules for both civil and criminal jury trials. 6 People v Joseph, 114 Mich App 70, 74-75 ; 318 NW2d 609 (1982) (finding no error when the trial court twice instructed the jury to continue deliberations but also informed the jury they could request the rereading of the testimony again if necessary); People v Robbins, 132 Mich App 616, 620-621 ; 347 NW2d 765 (1984) (finding no error when the trial court instructed the jury to continue attempting to discuss and resolve any problems without the requested

2025“If the charge has the effect of It has been replaced by MCR 2.513, which combines the general rules for both civil and criminal jury trials. 6 People v Joseph, 114 Mich App 70, 74-75 ; 318 NW2d 609 (1982) (finding no error when the trial court twice instructed the jury to continue deliberations but also informed the jury they could request the rereading of the testimony again if necessary); People v Robbins, 132 Mich App 616, 620-621 ; 347 NW2d 765 (1984) (finding no error when the trial court instructed the jury to continue attempting to discuss and resolve any problems without the requested

2025“If the charge has the effect of It has been replaced by MCR 2.513, which combines the general rules for both civil and criminal jury trials. 6 People v Joseph, 114 Mich App 70, 74-75 ; 318 NW2d 609 (1982) (finding no error when the trial court twice instructed the jury to continue deliberations but also informed the jury they could request the rereading of the testimony again if necessary); People v Robbins, 132 Mich App 616, 620-621 ; 347 NW2d 765 (1984) (finding no error when the trial court instructed the jury to continue attempting to discuss and resolve any problems without the requested

2024“A title-body challenge is an assertion that the body of an act exceeds the scope of its title.” Enbridge Energy, LP v State, 332 Mich App 540 , 546; 957 NW2d 53 (2020).

2024“A title-body challenge is an assertion that the body of an act exceeds the scope of its title.” Enbridge Energy, LP v State, 332 Mich App 540 , 546; 957 NW2d 53 (2020).

2020Id.; People v Orr, 275 Mich App 587, 595 ; 739 NW2d 385 (2007).

2020Id.; People v Orr, 275 Mich App 587, 595 ; 739 NW2d 385 (2007).

2020People v Sullivan, 392 Mich 324, 329 ; 220 NW2d 441 (1974.) The goal of such an instruction is to encourage further deliberation without coercing a verdict.

2020People v Sullivan, 392 Mich 324, 329 ; 220 NW2d 441 (1974.) The goal of such an instruction is to encourage further deliberation without coercing a verdict.

2019And our Supreme Court has indeed described the test as an objective test, id. at 470-471 ; Lugo, 464 Mich at 523-524 , and it explained that the goal of the test is to permit premises possessors to anticipate what harms must be remedied, see Hoffner, 492 Mich at 480-481 .

2019And our Supreme Court has indeed described the test as an objective test, id. at 470-471 ; Lugo, 464 Mich at 523-524 , and it explained that the goal of the test is to permit premises possessors to anticipate what harms must be remedied, see Hoffner, 492 Mich at 480-481 .

2019And our Supreme Court has indeed described the test as an objective test, id. at 470-471 ; Lugo, 464 Mich at 523-524 , and it explained that the goal of the test is to permit premises possessors to anticipate what harms must be remedied, see Hoffner, 492 Mich at 480-481 .

2016There is no doubt that filing requests to admit is an act of process, the purpose of which was given by our Supreme Court in Radtke v Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, 453 Mich 413, 419-420 ; 551 NW2d 698 (1996): MCR 2.312 is modeled after FR Civ P 36, and serves two vital purposes: Admissions are sought, first to facilitate proof with respect to issues that cannot be eliminated from the case, and secondly, to narrow the issues by eliminating those that can be. [Advisory Committee note of 1970 to amend rule 36.] By encouraging admissions, the goal of the rule ... [is] to expedite the pending

2016There is no doubt that filing requests to admit is an act of process, the purpose of which was given by our Supreme Court in Radtke v Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, 453 Mich 413, 419-420 ; 551 NW2d 698 (1996): MCR 2.312 is modeled after FR Civ P 36, and serves two vital purposes: Admissions are sought, first to facilitate proof with respect to issues that cannot be eliminated from the case, and secondly, to narrow the issues by eliminating those that can be. [Advisory Committee note of 1970 to amend rule 36.] By encouraging admissions, the goal of the rule ... [is] to expedite the pending

2012The doctrine of collateral estop-pel has compelling underpinnings because it “relieve [s] parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conservéis] judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage[s] reliance on adjudication.” Allen v McCurry, 449 US 90, 94 ; 101 S Ct 411 ; 66 L Ed 2d 308 (1980), citing Montana v United States, 440 US 147, 153-154 ; 99 S Ct 970 ; 59 L Ed 2d 210 (1979).

2012The doctrine of collateral estop-pel has compelling underpinnings because it “relieve [s] parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conservéis] judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage[s] reliance on adjudication.” Allen v McCurry, 449 US 90, 94 ; 101 S Ct 411 ; 66 L Ed 2d 308 (1980), citing Montana v United States, 440 US 147, 153-154 ; 99 S Ct 970 ; 59 L Ed 2d 210 (1979).

2012The doctrine of collateral estop-pel has compelling underpinnings because it “relieve [s] parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conservéis] judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage[s] reliance on adjudication.” Allen v McCurry, 449 US 90, 94 ; 101 S Ct 411 ; 66 L Ed 2d 308 (1980), citing Montana v United States, 440 US 147, 153-154 ; 99 S Ct 970 ; 59 L Ed 2d 210 (1979).

2012The doctrine of collateral estop-pel has compelling underpinnings because it “relieve [s] parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conservéis] judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage[s] reliance on adjudication.” Allen v McCurry, 449 US 90, 94 ; 101 S Ct 411 ; 66 L Ed 2d 308 (1980), citing Montana v United States, 440 US 147, 153-154 ; 99 S Ct 970 ; 59 L Ed 2d 210 (1979).

2009The goal of rule interpretation “ ‘is to give effect to the intent of the authors.’ ” Id.

2007Gratiot Lumber & Coal Co v Lubinski, 309 Mich 662, 668-669 ; 16 NW2d 112 (1944).

2007Gratiot Lumber & Coal Co v Lubinski, 309 Mich 662, 668-669 ; 16 NW2d 112 (1944).

2006It is quite naturally subject to careful limitation for it not only denies the plaintiff the generally accorded privilege of bringing an action where he chooses, but makes it possible for him to lose out completely, through the running of the statute of limitations in the forum finally deemed appropriate.” [Id. at 31, quoting All States Freight, Inc v Modarelli, 196 F2d 1010, 1011 (CA 3, 1952).] Earlier, the Court had stated the central goal of the doctrine: “[T]he ultimate inquiry is whether trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.” Koster v (American) Lum

2006It is quite naturally subject to careful limitation for it not only denies the plaintiff the generally accorded privilege of bringing an action where he chooses, but makes it possible for him to lose out completely, through the running of the statute of limitations in the forum finally deemed appropriate.” [Id. at 31, quoting All States Freight, Inc v Modarelli, 196 F2d 1010, 1011 (CA 3, 1952).] Earlier, the Court had stated the central goal of the doctrine: “[T]he ultimate inquiry is whether trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.” Koster v (American) Lum

2006It is quite naturally subject to careful limitation for it not only denies the plaintiff the generally accorded privilege of bringing an action where he chooses, but makes it possible for him to lose out completely, through the running of the statute of limitations in the forum finally deemed appropriate." [ Id. at 31 , 75 S.Ct. 544 quoting All States Freight, Inc. v. Modarelli, 196 F.2d 1010, 1011 (C.A.3, 1952).] Earlier, the Court had stated the central goal of the doctrine: "[T]he ultimate inquiry is whether trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice." Kost

2006It is quite naturally subject to careful limitation for it not only denies the plaintiff the generally accorded privilege of bringing an action where he chooses, but makes it possible for him to lose out completely, through the running of the statute of limitations in the forum finally deemed appropriate." [ Id. at 31 , 75 S.Ct. 544 quoting All States Freight, Inc. v. Modarelli, 196 F.2d 1010, 1011 (C.A.3, 1952).] Earlier, the Court had stated the central goal of the doctrine: "[T]he ultimate inquiry is whether trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice." Kost

2002Pohutski v Allen Park, 465 Mich 675, 691 ; 641 NW2d 219 (2002). *185 In People v Kevorkian, 447 Mich 436, 453 ; 527 NW2d 714 (1994), our Supreme Court explained that three challenges may be brought against statutes on the basis of Const 1963, art 4, § 24: (1) a “title-body” challenge, which indicates that the body exceeds the scope of the title, (2) a “multiple-object challenge,” which indicates that the body embraces more than one object, and (3) a “change of purpose challenge,” which indicates that the subject matter of the amendment is not germane to the original purpose.

2002Pohutski v Allen Park, 465 Mich 675, 691 ; 641 NW2d 219 (2002). *185 In People v Kevorkian, 447 Mich 436, 453 ; 527 NW2d 714 (1994), our Supreme Court explained that three challenges may be brought against statutes on the basis of Const 1963, art 4, § 24: (1) a “title-body” challenge, which indicates that the body exceeds the scope of the title, (2) a “multiple-object challenge,” which indicates that the body embraces more than one object, and (3) a “change of purpose challenge,” which indicates that the subject matter of the amendment is not germane to the original purpose.

1994In United States v Nixon, supra , the Court considered the injury that defeat of the asserted privilege for presidential communications would have on the goal of the privilege to encourage frank and honest discussions between the president and his advisers.

1994In United States v Nixon, supra, the Court considered the injury that defeat of the asserted privilege for presidential communications would have on the goal of the privilege to encourage frank and honest discussions between the president and his advisers.

1994Similarly, in Davis v Alaska, supra , the Court considered the possible injury to the goal of the privilege afforded by statute to juvenile records that would result from disclosure of those records through cross-examination of the witness, but characterized such injury as merely a "temporary *722 embarrassment" to the witness or his family, not on par with the defendant's right of confrontation.

1994Similarly, in Davis v Alaska, supra, the Court considered the possible injury to the goal of the privilege afforded by statute to juvenile records that would result from disclosure of those records through cross-examination of the witness, but characterized such injury as merely a "temporary embarrassment” to the witness or his family, not on par with the defendant’s right of confrontation.

1993People v Fuqua, 146 Mich App 250, 254 ; 379 NW2d 442 (1985).

1993People v Fuqua, 146 Mich App 250, 254 ; 379 NW2d 442 (1985).

1986The central goal of the doctrine's application is to "free people from the uncertain prospect of litigation, with all its costs to emotional peace and the ordering of future affairs." 18 Wright, Miller & Cooper, supra, § 4403, p 15. *585 In Michigan, the doctrine of res judicata applies, except in special cases, in a subsequent action between the same parties and "`not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising rea

1986The central goal of the doctrine's application is to "free people from the uncertain prospect of litigation, with all its costs to emotional peace and the ordering of future affairs." 18 Wright, Miller & Cooper, supra, § 4403, p 15. *585 In Michigan, the doctrine of res judicata applies, except in special cases, in a subsequent action between the same parties and "`not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising rea

1986The central goal of the doctrine's application is to "free people from the uncertain prospect of litigation, with all its costs to emotional peace and the ordering of future affairs." 18 Wright, Miller & Cooper, supra, § 4403, p 15. *585 In Michigan, the doctrine of res judicata applies, except in special cases, in a subsequent action between the same parties and "`not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising rea

1986The central goal of the doctrine's application is to "free people from the uncertain prospect of litigation, with all its costs to emotional peace and the ordering of future affairs." 18 Wright, Miller & Cooper, supra, § 4403, p 15. *585 In Michigan, the doctrine of res judicata applies, except in special cases, in a subsequent action between the same parties and "`not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising rea