137 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 36 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Mossgreen2 sentences2025In the trial court, “the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to the best-interest determination.” In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 83 ; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). 2025In the trial court, “the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to the best-interest determination.” In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 83 ; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). | 3 | 19 |
Pierron v. Pierrongreen2 sentences2024See also Pierron, 486 Mich at 89-90, 92 (applying the preponderance of the evidence standard in a case where there was no change to the established custodial environment). 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 | 3 | 4 |
Walton v. Arizonared2 sentences2022See Walton, 497 US at 649 ; Arizona Rev Stat Ann 13-703(C) and (E) (1989). 2022See Walton, 497 US at 649 ; Arizona Rev Stat Ann 13-703(C) and (E) (1989). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Hardy; People v. Glenngreen2 sentences2021See People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430, 438 ; 835 NW2d 340 (2013). 2016In People v Apgar, 264 Mich App 321, 329 ; 690 NW2d 312 (2004), this Court concluded that a victim’s testimony that “she was fearful during the encounter with defendant . . . was sufficient to support the trial court’s decision to score OV 4 at ten points.” However, the Court’s review in Apgar was guided by an evidentiary standard substantially less rigid than the preponderance of the evidence standard.5 In Hardy, 494 Mich at 438 n 18, our Supreme Court noted that “[s]everal recent Court of Appeals decisions have stated that ‘scoring decisions for which there is any evidence in support will be | 2 | 5 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2017See also People v Jones, 270 Mich App 208, 216 ; 714 NW2d 362 (2006) (holding that the preponderance of the evidence standard governs admissibility under MRE 801(d)(2)(E)). 1. 2017See also People v Jones, 270 Mich App 208, 216 ; 714 NW2d 362 (2006) (holding that the preponderance of the evidence standard governs admissibility under MRE 801(d)(2)(E)). 1. | 2 | 2 |
ProMed Healthcare v. City of Kalamazoogreen2 sentences2017See ProMed Healthcare v City of Kalamazoo, 249 Mich App 490, 495 ; 644 NW2d 47 (2002) (stating, “the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to a petitioner’s attempts to establish membership in an already exempt class”). 2017See ProMed Healthcare v City of Kalamazoo, 249 Mich App 490, 495 ; 644 NW2d 47 (2002) (stating, “the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to a petitioner’s attempts to establish membership in an already exempt class”). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Greengreen2 sentences2017See People v Green, 310 Mich App 249, 255 ; 871 NW2d 888 (2015) (in a criminal -6- proceeding, a prosecutor must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt). 2017See People v Green, 310 Mich App 249, 255 ; 871 NW2d 888 (2015) (in a criminal -6- proceeding, a prosecutor must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt). | 2 | 2 |
Vodvarka v. Grasmeyergreen2 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 2018In this case, the trial court sua sponte decided that, although a change in custody would alter the child’s established custodial environment thereby necessitating application of the clear and convincing standard, it was only required to apply a preponderance of the evidence standard.5 The court reasoned that because Jason and Rebekah “have the same burden [of proof], and a change must be made, it is appropriate to weigh the factors using a preponderance of the evidence.” We disagree. 3 “[P]roper cause means one or more appropriate grounds that have or could have a significant effect on the ch | 1 | 10 |
Shade v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2023See Shade, 291 Mich App at 23 . 2022Shade v Wright, 291 Mich App 17, 23 ; 805 NW2d 1 (2010). | 1 | 4 |
In Re Contempt of ACIAgreen2 sentences2025“When exercising its civil contempt power, the court acts as the factfinder, determines whether there was contempt under a preponderance of the evidence standard, and imposes sanctions if this standard is met.” In re Contempt of ACIA, 243 Mich App at 712 . 2016Civil contempt proceedings seek compliance through the imposition of sanctions of indefinite duration, terminable upon the contemnor’s compliance or inability to comply. [In re Moroun, 295 Mich App at 331 (quotation marks and citations omitted).] “When exercising its civil contempt power, the court acts as the factfinder, determines whether there was contempt under a preponderance of the evidence standard, and imposes sanctions if this standard is met.” In re Contempt of Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 243 Mich App at 712 . | 1 | 3 |
People v. Ratkovgreen2 sentences2017And, because a preponderance of the evidence standard applies to the scoring of the sentencing guidelines, facts may be scored at sentencing which were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt for purposes of conviction. 1 People v Ratkov, 201 Mich App 123, 126 ; 505 NW2d 886 (1993). 2017And, because a preponderance of the evidence standard applies to the scoring of the sentencing guidelines, facts may be scored at sentencing which were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt for purposes of conviction. 1 People v Ratkov, 201 Mich App 123, 126 ; 505 NW2d 886 (1993). | 1 | 3 |
Jason Andrew Griffin v. Rebekah Marie Griffingreen2 sentences2023Id. at 118 . 2023Compare Griffin v Griffin, 323 Mich App 110 , 123 n 8; 916 NW2d 292 (2018), with In re LaFrance, 306 Mich App at 733 . | 1 | 2 |
Residential Ratepayer Consortium v. Public Service Commissiongreen2 sentences2014See Residential Ratepayer Consortium, 198 Mich App at 149 ; see also In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 84 ; 836 NW2d 182 (2013) (“in civil cases, the Legislature’s failure to spell out a standard of proof would usually require application of the preponderance of the evidence standard”). 2013Residential Ratepayer Consortium v Pub Serv Comm, 198 Mich App 144, 149 ; 497 NW2d 558 (1993). | 1 | 2 |
| Rains v. Rainsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Elliottgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stein v. Home-Owners Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Wattsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ewinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Moroungreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hendersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Santosky v. Kramergreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Iwan Mandyczgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Governorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re WINSHIPgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rummelt v. Andersonred2 sentences2018Although Rummelt held that a court need only apply a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard when faced with competing, "equal" presumptions under MCL 722.27(1)(c) and MCL 722.25, Rummelt , 196 Mich.App. at 494 , 493 N.W.2d 434 , our Supreme Court later clarified that because a parent has a constitutional right to parent his or her child, in custody disputes between natural parents and a third party with whom the child has an established custodial environment, the third party must establish by clear and convincing evidence that custody with the natural parent is not in the child's best interest 2018Although Rummelt held that a court need only apply a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard when faced with competing, "equal" presumptions under MCL 722.27(1)(c) and MCL 722.25, Rummelt , 196 Mich.App. at 494 , 493 N.W.2d 434 , our Supreme Court later clarified that because a parent has a constitutional right to parent his or her child, in custody disputes between natural parents and a third party with whom the child has an established custodial environment, the third party must establish by clear and convincing evidence that custody with the natural parent is not in the child's best interest | 3 | 3 |
Heltzel v. Heltzelgreen2 sentences2018The court based its decision to apply a lesser burden of proof on this Court's decisions in Heltzel v. Heltzel , 248 Mich.App. 1 , 638 N.W.2d 123 (2001), and Rummelt v. Anderson , 196 Mich.App. 491 , 493 N.W.2d 434 (1992), abrogated by Hunter v. Hunter , 484 Mich. 247 , 771 N.W.2d 694 (2009). 2018The court based its decision to apply a lesser burden of proof on this Court's decisions in Heltzel v. Heltzel , 248 Mich.App. 1 , 638 N.W.2d 123 (2001), and Rummelt v. Anderson , 196 Mich.App. 491 , 493 N.W.2d 434 (1992), abrogated by Hunter v. Hunter , 484 Mich. 247 , 771 N.W.2d 694 (2009). | 2 | 3 |
McMillan v. Pennsylvaniared2 sentences2020Unlike the uncharged conduct in McMillan [v Pennsylvania, 477 US 79 ; 106 S Ct 2411 ; 91 L Ed 2d 67 (1986)], conduct that is protected by the presumption of innocence may not be evaluated using the preponderance-of-the- evidence standard without violating due process. [Id. at 18-19 [footnotes omitted]).] Because the trial court in Beck “punished the defendant more severely on the basis of the judge’s finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the murder of which the jury had acquitted him,” id. at 21, the defendant’s sentence for felon-in-possession was vacated and 2020Unlike the uncharged conduct in McMillan [v Pennsylvania, 477 US 79 ; 106 S Ct 2411 ; 91 L Ed 2d 67 (1986)], conduct that is protected by the presumption of innocence may not be evaluated using the preponderance-of-the- evidence standard without violating due process. [Id. at 18-19 [footnotes omitted]).] Because the trial court in Beck “punished the defendant more severely on the basis of the judge’s finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the murder of which the jury had acquitted him,” id. at 21, the defendant’s sentence for felon-in-possession was vacated and | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Rhodes
green
2 sentences2018While a “defendant’s exclusive possession of a gun during the criminal transaction is some evidence of leadership, . . . it does not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard found in Hardy.” Id. 2018While a “defendant’s exclusive possession of a gun during the criminal transaction is some evidence of leadership, . . . it does not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard found in Hardy.” Id. | 4 | 2017–2018 |
In Re Martin
green
2 sentences2026Id. at 183 (quotation marks omitted), quoting In re Martin, 167 Mich App 715, 725 ; 423 NW2d 327 (1988). 2026Id. at 183 (quotation marks omitted), quoting In re Martin, 167 Mich App 715, 725 ; 423 NW2d 327 (1988). | 3 | 2023–2026 |
in Re I M Long Minor
green
2 sentences2025As referenced in In re Long, 326 Mich App at 461 , the only evidence presented by the petitioner indicated that the apartment was cluttered, which does not satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. 2025As referenced in In re Long, 326 Mich App at 461 , the only evidence presented by the petitioner indicated that the apartment was cluttered, which does not satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. | 3 | 2025–2025 |
Alleyne v. United States
green
2 sentences2020Unlike the uncharged conduct in [McMillan v Pennsylvania, 477 US 79 ; 106 S Ct 2411 ; 91 L Ed 2d 67 (1986), overruled by Alleyne v United States, 570 US 99, 112 ; 133 S Ct 2151 ; 186 L Ed 2d 314 (2013)], conduct that is protected by the presumption of innocence may not be evaluated using the preponderance-of- the-evidence standard without violating due process. [Beck, 504 Mich at 626-627 (footnotes omitted).] The Court then concluded that the trial court had “punished the defendant more severely on the basis of the judge’s finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed 2020Unlike the uncharged conduct in [McMillan v Pennsylvania, 477 US 79 ; 106 S Ct 2411 ; 91 L Ed 2d 67 (1986), overruled by Alleyne v United States, 570 US 99, 112 ; 133 S Ct 2151 ; 186 L Ed 2d 314 (2013)], conduct that is protected by the presumption of innocence may not be evaluated using the preponderance-of- the-evidence standard without violating due process. [Beck, 504 Mich at 626-627 (footnotes omitted).] The Court then concluded that the trial court had “punished the defendant more severely on the basis of the judge’s finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed | 3 | 2015–2020 |
Hunter v. Hunter
green
2 sentences2018Although Rummelt held that a court need only apply a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard when faced with competing, "equal" presumptions under MCL 722.27(1)(c) and MCL 722.25, Rummelt , 196 Mich.App. at 494 , 493 N.W.2d 434 , our Supreme Court later clarified that because a parent has a constitutional right to parent his or her child, in custody disputes between natural parents and a third party with whom the child has an established custodial environment, the third party must establish by clear and convincing evidence that custody with the natural parent is not in the child's best interest 2018Although Rummelt held that a court need only apply a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard when faced with competing, "equal" presumptions under MCL 722.27(1)(c) and MCL 722.25, Rummelt , 196 Mich.App. at 494 , 493 N.W.2d 434 , our Supreme Court later clarified that because a parent has a constitutional right to parent his or her child, in custody disputes between natural parents and a third party with whom the child has an established custodial environment, the third party must establish by clear and convincing evidence that custody with the natural parent is not in the child's best interest | 3 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Osantowski
green
2 sentences2018Id. 2018Id. | 3 | 2012–2018 |
Redd v. Carney (In re Redd)
green
2 sentences2025The court subsequently addressed the “suitability” of the potential guardians, i.e., appellant and appellee, and it cited In re Guardianship of Redd, 321 Mich App 398 ; 909 NW2d 289 (2017), to establish the proper standard of proof providing, “the court will determine the suitability of the proposed guardian(s) under a preponderance of the evidence standard with due consideration to [IS’s] preference, as statutorily required under MCL 330.1628(2).” The trial court delineated the terms of the October 6, 2022 consent order governing the terms of the parties’ guardianship, and it opined appellant 2025The court subsequently addressed the “suitability” of the potential guardians, i.e., appellant and appellee, and it cited In re Guardianship of Redd, 321 Mich App 398 ; 909 NW2d 289 (2017), to establish the proper standard of proof providing, “the court will determine the suitability of the proposed guardian(s) under a preponderance of the evidence standard with due consideration to [IS’s] preference, as statutorily required under MCL 330.1628(2).” The trial court delineated the terms of the October 6, 2022 consent order governing the terms of the parties’ guardianship, and it opined appellant | 2 | 2018–2025 |
Graham v. Foster
green
2 sentences2024“A trial judge is presumed to know the law,” including the applicable standard of proof, Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 427 ; 873 NW2d 596 (2015) (citation omitted), and, here, the trial court stated the correct standard. 2019Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 472 ; 873 NW2d 596 (2015). | 2 | 2019–2024 |
Demski v. Petlick
green
2 sentences2024“A trial judge is presumed to know the law,” including the applicable standard of proof, Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 427 ; 873 NW2d 596 (2015) (citation omitted), and, here, the trial court stated the correct standard. 2019Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 472 ; 873 NW2d 596 (2015). | 2 | 2019–2024 |
In Re Ferrara
green
2 sentences2019In re Ferrara, 458 Mich. 350 , 360; 582 N.W.2d 817 (1998). 2019In re Ferrara, 458 Mich. 350 , 360; 582 N.W.2d 817 (1998). | 2 | 2008–2019 |
People v. Hendrickson
green
2 sentences2017In People v Hendrickson, 459 Mich 229, 241-242 ; 586 NW2d 906 (1998), the Michigan Supreme Court explained the role of the trial court in considering preliminary factual questions relevant to the admissibility of evidence: Under MRE 104(a), preliminary factual questions of admissibility are determined by the trial court utilizing a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. 2017In People v Hendrickson, 459 Mich 229, 241-242 ; 586 NW2d 906 (1998), the Michigan Supreme Court explained the role of the trial court in considering preliminary factual questions relevant to the admissibility of evidence: Under MRE 104(a), preliminary factual questions of admissibility are determined by the trial court utilizing a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Sharpe
green
2 sentences2017With regard to the length of the detention, a court must examine “whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.” United States v Sharpe, 470 US 675, 686 ; 105 S Ct 1568, 1575 ; 84 L Ed 2d 605 (1985). 2017With regard to the length of the detention, a court must examine “whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.” United States v Sharpe, 470 US 675, 686 ; 105 S Ct 1568, 1575 ; 84 L Ed 2d 605 (1985). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Booker
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 227 . 2007Id. at 227 , 125 S.Ct. 738 . | 2 | 2006–2007 |
People v. Portus (In Re Portus)
green
1 sentence2025Given that that standard of proof was undisputed, we cannot conclude that the probate court’s failure to explicitly state the standard of proof was “outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” See In re Portus, 325 Mich App at 381 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| In re McCarrick green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Milbourn red | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In re LaFrance Minors green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People of Michigan v. Torrey Craft green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Dykes v. William Beaumont Hospital green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Kessler v. Kessler green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Golba green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Cross green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Construction, Inc. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Construction, Inc. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| In Re Baldwin's Estate green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In re Proctor neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Craig v. Oakwood Hospital green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People of Michigan v. Dawn Marie Dixon-Bey green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| in Re C M R Kaczkowski Minor green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Heindlmeyer v. Ottawa County Concealed Weapons Licensing Board green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In Re Trejo Minors red | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Miller green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Corporan v. Henton green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Kimble green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In Re BZ green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Coulter green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Palenkas v. Beaumont Hospital green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Breeding green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Walters v. Snyder green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Apprendi v. New Jersey green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.