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 1992–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Alabamagreen2 sentences2016In Eliason, 300 Mich App at 310 , this Court noted that “the only discretion afforded to the trial court in light of our first-degree murder statutes and Miller is whether to impose a penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or life imprisonment with the possibility of parole” guided by “the following nonexclusive list of factors”: (a) the character and record of the individual offender [and] the circumstances of the offense, (b) the chronological age of the minor, (c) the background and mental and emotional development of a youthful defendant, (d) the family and home env 2014In deciding whether to impose a life sentence with or without the possibility of parole, the trial court is to be guided by the following nonexclusive list of factors: (a) the character and record of the individual offender [and] the circumstances of the offense, (b) the chronological age of the minor, (c) the background and mental and emotional development of a youthful defendant, (d) the family and home environment, (e) the circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of his participation in the conduct and the way familial and peer pressure may have affected [the juvenile], ( | 2 | 3 |
People of Michigan v. Dawn Marie Dixon-Beygreen2 sentences2021When determining a proportional sentence, a trial court may consider this nonexclusive list of factors: (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. [Walden, 319 Mich App at 352-353 (quotation marks and citation omitted.] “[A] trial court must justify the sentence imposed in order to facilitate 2021When determining a proportional sentence, a trial court may consider this nonexclusive list of factors: (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. [Walden, 319 Mich App at 352-353 (quotation marks and citation omitted.] “[A] trial court must justify the sentence imposed in order to facilitate | 1 | 2 |
Pirgu v. United Services Automobile Associationgreen2 sentences2024Having reached a baseline figure, the court is to then consider whether an upward or downward adjustment is appropriate based on the following nonexclusive list of factors: (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 likelihood, if 2019Lastly, the trial court should consider the following nonexclusive list of factors to determine whether an upward or downward 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, -5- (6) the likelihood, if apparent to the | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kuonegreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., State v Robinson, 153 Ariz 191, 201; 735 P2d 801, 811 (1987) (spontaneity and consistent repetition); Morgan v Foretich, 846 F2d 941, 948 (CA 4, *296 1988) (mental state of the declarant); State v Sorenson, 143 Wis 2d 226, 246 ; 421 NW2d 77, 85 (1988) (use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age); State v Kuone, 243 Kan 218, 221-222; 757 P2d 289, 292-293 (1988) (lack of motive to fabricate). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Manninggreen2 sentences2002The Cipriano Court set forth the following nonexclusive list of factors for use in determining whether a statement is voluntary: the age of the accused; his lack of education or his intelligence level; the extent of his previous experience with the police; the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; the length of the detention of the accused before he gave the statement in question; the lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights; whether there was an unnecessary delay in bringing him before a magistrate before he gave the confession; whether the accused was injure 2002The Cipriano Court set forth the following nonexclusive list of factors for use in determining whether a statement is voluntary: the age of the accused; his lack of education or his intelligence level; the extent of his previous experience with the police; the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; the length of the detention of the accused before he gave the statement in question; the lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights; whether there was an unnecessary delay in bringing him before a magistrate before he gave the confession; whether the accused was injure | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., State v Robinson, 153 Ariz 191, 201; 735 P2d 801, 811 (1987) (spontaneity and consistent repetition); Morgan v Foretich, 846 F2d 941, 948 (CA 4, *296 1988) (mental state of the declarant); State v Sorenson, 143 Wis 2d 226, 246 ; 421 NW2d 77, 85 (1988) (use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age); State v Kuone, 243 Kan 218, 221-222; 757 P2d 289, 292-293 (1988) (lack of motive to fabricate). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sorensongreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., State v Robinson, 153 Ariz 191, 201; 735 P2d 801, 811 (1987) (spontaneity and consistent repetition); Morgan v Foretich, 846 F2d 941, 948 (CA 4, *296 1988) (mental state of the declarant); State v Sorenson, 143 Wis 2d 226, 246 ; 421 NW2d 77, 85 (1988) (use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age); State v Kuone, 243 Kan 218, 221-222; 757 P2d 289, 292-293 (1988) (lack of motive to fabricate). 2002See, e.g., State v Robinson, 153 Ariz 191, 201; 735 P2d 801, 811 (1987) (spontaneity and consistent repetition); Morgan v Foretich, 846 F2d 941, 948 (CA 4, *296 1988) (mental state of the declarant); State v Sorenson, 143 Wis 2d 226, 246 ; 421 NW2d 77, 85 (1988) (use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age); State v Kuone, 243 Kan 218, 221-222; 757 P2d 289, 292-293 (1988) (lack of motive to fabricate). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Poolegreen2 sentences2001This Court has outlined a nonexclusive list of factors that favor and disfavor the admission of a statement against interest. "[C]ourts must evaluate the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement as well as its content." Poole, supra, 444 Mich. at 165, 506 N.W.2d 505 . *520 The presence of the following factors would favor admission of such a statement: whether the statement was (1) voluntarily given, (2) made contemporaneously with the events referenced, (3) made to family, friends, colleagues, or confederates—that is, to someone to whom the declarant would likely speak the truth, 2001This Court has outlined a nonexclusive list of factors that favor and disfavor the admission of a statement against interest. “[C]ourts must evaluate the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement as well as its content.” Poole, supra, 444 Mich 165 . | 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. Kanaan
green
2 sentences2015The following nonexclusive list of factors may be considered to establish premeditation: “(1) the previous relationship between the defendant and the victim; (2) the defendant’s actions before and after the crime; and (3) the circumstances of the killing itself, including the weapon used and the location of the wounds inflicted.” People v Plummer, 229 Mich App 293, 300 ; 581 NW2d 753 (1998). “[M]inimal circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state of mind[.]” People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 622 ; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). 2015The following nonexclusive list of factors may be considered to establish premeditation: “(1) the previous relationship between the defendant and the victim; (2) the defendant’s actions before and after the crime; and (3) the circumstances of the killing itself, including the weapon used and the location of the wounds inflicted.” People v Plummer, 229 Mich App 293, 300 ; 581 NW2d 753 (1998). “[M]inimal circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state of mind[.]” People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 622 ; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). | 4 | 2015–2016 |
People v. Coddington
green
2 sentences2016People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 229 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008); People v Coddington, 188 Mich App 584, 600 ; 470 NW2d 478 (1991). “[M]inimal circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state of mind[.]” People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 622 ; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). 2016People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 229 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008); People v Coddington, 188 Mich App 584, 600 ; 470 NW2d 478 (1991). “[M]inimal circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state of mind[.]” People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 622 ; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). | 3 | 2015–2016 |
People v. Unger
green
2 sentences2016People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 229 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008); People v Coddington, 188 Mich App 584, 600 ; 470 NW2d 478 (1991). “[M]inimal circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state of mind[.]” People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 622 ; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). 2016People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 229 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008); People v Coddington, 188 Mich App 584, 600 ; 470 NW2d 478 (1991). “[M]inimal circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state of mind[.]” People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 622 ; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). | 3 | 2015–2016 |
Smith v. Khouri
green
2 sentences2024Smith, 481 Mich at 531-532 . 2024Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519, 531 ; 751 NW2d 472 (2008) (opinion by TAYLOR, C.J.). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Carp
green
2 sentences2016In Eliason, 300 Mich App at 310 , this Court noted that “the only discretion afforded to the trial court in light of our first-degree murder statutes and Miller is whether to impose a penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or life imprisonment with the possibility of parole” guided by “the following nonexclusive list of factors”: (a) the character and record of the individual offender [and] the circumstances of the offense, (b) the chronological age of the minor, (c) the background and mental and emotional development of a youthful defendant, (d) the family and home env 2014In deciding whether to impose a life sentence with or without the possibility of parole, the trial court is to be guided by the following nonexclusive list of factors: (a) the character and record of the individual offender [and] the circumstances of the offense, (b) the chronological age of the minor, (c) the background and mental and emotional development of a youthful defendant, (d) the family and home environment, (e) the circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of his participation in the conduct and the way familial and peer pressure may have affected [the juvenile], ( | 2 | 2014–2016 |
Neil v. Biggers
green
2 sentences2021In order to determine whether an identification was reliable, this Court applies the nonexclusive list of factors set forth in Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188, 201 ; 93 S Ct 375 ; 34 L Ed 2d 401 (1972). 2021In order to determine whether an identification was reliable, this Court applies the nonexclusive list of factors set forth in Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188, 201 ; 93 S Ct 375 ; 34 L Ed 2d 401 (1972). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Farquharson
green
2 sentences2016In People v Farquharson, 274 Mich App 268, 275 ; 731 NW2d 797 (2007), this Court stated that “[w]hether a party had a similar motive to develop the testimony depends on the similarity of the issues for which the testimony is presented at each proceeding.” -5- The Court adopted a nonexclusive list of factors to be considered in determining whether a party had a similar motive to examine a witness at a prior proceeding: (1) whether the party opposing the testimony “had at a prior proceeding an interest of substantially similar intensity to prove (or disprove) the same side of a substantially sim 2016In People v Farquharson, 274 Mich App 268, 275 ; 731 NW2d 797 (2007), this Court stated that “[w]hether a party had a similar motive to develop the testimony depends on the similarity of the issues for which the testimony is presented at each proceeding.” -5- The Court adopted a nonexclusive list of factors to be considered in determining whether a party had a similar motive to examine a witness at a prior proceeding: (1) whether the party opposing the testimony “had at a prior proceeding an interest of substantially similar intensity to prove (or disprove) the same side of a substantially sim | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Plummer
green
2 sentences2015The following nonexclusive list of factors may be considered to establish premeditation: “(1) the previous relationship between the defendant and the victim; (2) the defendant’s actions before and after the crime; and (3) the circumstances of the killing itself, including the weapon used and the location of the wounds inflicted.” People v Plummer, 229 Mich App 293, 300 ; 581 NW2d 753 (1998). “[M]inimal circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state of mind[.]” People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 622 ; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). 2015The following nonexclusive list of factors may be considered to establish premeditation: “(1) the previous relationship between the defendant and the victim; (2) the defendant’s actions before and after the crime; and (3) the circumstances of the killing itself, including the weapon used and the location of the wounds inflicted.” People v Plummer, 229 Mich App 293, 300 ; 581 NW2d 753 (1998). “[M]inimal circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state of mind[.]” People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 622 ; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People of Michigan v. Raymond Curtis Carp
green
1 sentence2014In deciding whether to impose a life sentence with or without the possibility of parole, the trial court is to be guided by the following nonexclusive list of factors: (a) the character and record of the individual offender [and] the circumstances of the offense, (b) the chronological age of the minor, (c) the background and mental and emotional development of a youthful defendant, (d) the family and home environment, (e) the circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of his participation in the conduct and the way familial and peer pressure may have affected [the juvenile], ( | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Condemnation of Property
green
2 sentences2006In re Condemnation of Private Property for Highway Purposes, 209 Mich App 336, 340-341 ; 530 NW2d 183 (1995). *684 In this case, the trial court denied plaintiffs request for costs and fees, but gave no explanation for its decision to do so. 2006In re Condemnation of Private Property for Highway Purposes, 209 Mich App 336, 340-341 ; 530 NW2d 183 (1995). *684 In this case, the trial court denied plaintiffs request for costs and fees, but gave no explanation for its decision to do so. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Cipriano
green
1 sentence2002The Cipriano Court set forth the following nonexclusive list of factors for use in determining whether a statement is voluntary: the age of the accused; his lack of education or his intelligence level; the extent of his previous experience with the police; the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; the length of the detention of the accused before he gave the statement in question; the lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights; whether there was an unnecessary delay in bringing him before a magistrate before he gave the confession; whether the accused was injure | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Juillet
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 57 , 475 N.W.2d 786 . 2001Id. at 57 , 475 N.W.2d 786 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Howard v. Canteen Corp.
red
2 sentences1998In Howard v Canteen Corp, 192 Mich App 427, 437 ; 481 NW2d 718 (1992), this Court further noted: Where attorney fees are to be awarded, the court must determine the reasonable amount of fees according to the nonexclusive list of factors and guidelines set forth in Wood v DAIIE [ 413 Mich 573, 588 ; 321 NW2d 653 (1982)]. 1998In Howard v Canteen Corp, 192 Mich App 427, 437 ; 481 NW2d 718 (1992), this Court further noted: Where attorney fees are to be awarded, the court must determine the reasonable amount of fees according to the nonexclusive list of factors and guidelines set forth in Wood v DAIIE [ 413 Mich 573, 588 ; 321 NW2d 653 (1982)]. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Wood v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange
green
2 sentences1998In Howard v Canteen Corp, 192 Mich App 427, 437 ; 481 NW2d 718 (1992), this Court further noted: Where attorney fees are to be awarded, the court must determine the reasonable amount of fees according to the nonexclusive list of factors and guidelines set forth in Wood v DAIIE [ 413 Mich 573, 588 ; 321 NW2d 653 (1982)]. 1998In Howard v Canteen Corp, 192 Mich App 427, 437 ; 481 NW2d 718 (1992), this Court further noted: Where attorney fees are to be awarded, the court must determine the reasonable amount of fees according to the nonexclusive list of factors and guidelines set forth in Wood v DAIIE [ 413 Mich 573, 588 ; 321 NW2d 653 (1982)]. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Fields
green
1 sentence1997Id., 76-77 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Matter of Conroy
green
2 sentences1992Conroy , 98 NJ at 397, 486 A2d 1209 (Handler, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part). [109 Wash 2d 567-568.] The trial court in this case properly recognized the best interests standard as an appropriate standard to use in deciding whether to remove life-support systems for Joelle. hi Respondent has suggested that the determination of death act, MCL 333.1021 et seq.; MSA 14.15(1021) et seq., precludes the removal of a patient’s life-support apparatus until after the patient has been determined to be brain dead. 1992Conroy, 98 NJ at 397, 486 A2d 1209 (Handler, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part). [109 Wash 2d 567-568.] The trial court in this case properly recognized the best interests standard as an appropriate standard to use in deciding whether to remove life-support systems for Joelle. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.