20 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2026 14 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lemmongreen2 sentences2021See People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 636 ; 576 NW2d 129 (1998) (when analyzing a great-weight of the evidence challenge, no court may sit as the “13th juror” and reassess the evidence). 2021See People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 636 ; 576 NW2d 129 (1998) (when analyzing a great-weight of the evidence challenge, no court may sit as the “13th juror” and reassess the evidence). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Camerongreen2 sentences2021See People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 617 ; 806 NW2d 371 (2011). “[W]hen a party fails to preserve a great-weight issue for appeal, an appellate court will look for plain error affecting the defendant’s substantial rights.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2. 2016See Cameron, 291 Mich App at 619 (holding that the defendant failed to show plain error on a great-weight-of-the- evidence challenge by arguing that the victim’s statements during trial were inconsistent with her earlier statements to police). | 2 | 2 |
Pierron v. Pierrongreen1 sentence2024Whether a proposed change of schools would alter a child’s established custodial environment is a factual determination reviewed under the great-weight-of- the-evidence standard.3 See, e.g., Pierron, 486 Mich at 89 (“Therefore, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court’s determination that the proposed change of schools would alter the established custodial environment was against the great weight of the evidence.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer
green
2 sentences2025Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 507 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003). 2022A trial court commits clear legal error when it incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law. [Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 507 -508 quotation and citations omitted).] The trial court’s determination whether a party has demonstrated proper cause or a change of circumstances is also reviewed under the great-weight-of-the-evidence standard. | 2 | 2022–2025 |
Mary Ilene McRoberts v. Kyle Andrew Ferguson
green
2 sentences2024We review a trial court’s findings regarding the best-interest factors under the great- weight-of-the evidence standard, MCL 722.28, and a trial court’s ultimate custody decision for an abuse of discretion, McRoberts v Ferguson, 322 Mich App 125, 133-134 ; 910 NW2d 721 (2017). 2024We review a trial court’s findings regarding the best-interest factors under the great- weight-of-the evidence standard, MCL 722.28, and a trial court’s ultimate custody decision for an abuse of discretion, McRoberts v Ferguson, 322 Mich App 125, 133-134 ; 910 NW2d 721 (2017). | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Dailey v. Kloenhamer
green
2 sentences2023Dailey v Kloenhamer, 291 Mich App 660, 664 ; 811 NW2d 501 (2011). 2022Whether there is an established custodial environment is a question of fact reviewed under the great-weight-of-the-evidence standard, Pennington, 329 Mich App at 570, while to whom custody should be awarded is a discretionary ruling reviewed for a palpable abuse of discretion, Dailey, 291 Mich App at 664 . | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Kessler v. Kessler
green
2 sentences2019The applicable burden of proof presents a question of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal. [Quotation marks and citations omitted.] Under the great-weight-of-the-evidence standard, “we affirm a trial court’s findings unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.” Kessler v Kessler, 295 Mich App 54, 63 ; 811 NW2d 39 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2019The applicable burden of proof presents a question of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal. [Quotation marks and citations omitted.] Under the great-weight-of-the-evidence standard, “we affirm a trial court’s findings unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.” Kessler v Kessler, 295 Mich App 54, 63 ; 811 NW2d 39 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Corporan v. Henton
green
1 sentence2024Corporan, 282 Mich App at 605 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Zawilanski v. Marshall
green
2 sentences2024“A trial court abuses its discretion on a custody matter when its decision is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a defiance of judgment, or the exercise of passion or bias.” Zawilanski v Marshall, 317 Mich App 43, 48 ; 894 NW2d 141 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2024“A trial court abuses its discretion on a custody matter when its decision is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a defiance of judgment, or the exercise of passion or bias.” Zawilanski v Marshall, 317 Mich App 43, 48 ; 894 NW2d 141 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Trader v. Comerica Bank
green
2 sentences2022We defer to the probate court on matters of credibility, and will give broad deference to findings made by the probate court because of its unique vantage point regarding witnesses, their testimony, and other influencing factors not readily available to the reviewing court. [Lewis Estate v Rosebrook, 329 Mich App 85 , 93; 941 NW2d 74 (2019) (quotation marks and citations omitted.)] The probate court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, Trader v Comerica Bank, 293 Mich App 210, 215 ; 809 NW2d 429 (2011), including “whether the trial court properly applied equitable principles,” 21st Centu 2022We defer to the probate court on matters of credibility, and will give broad deference to findings made by the probate court because of its unique vantage point regarding witnesses, their testimony, and other influencing factors not readily available to the reviewing court. [Lewis Estate v Rosebrook, 329 Mich App 85 , 93; 941 NW2d 74 (2019) (quotation marks and citations omitted.)] The probate court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, Trader v Comerica Bank, 293 Mich App 210, 215 ; 809 NW2d 429 (2011), including “whether the trial court properly applied equitable principles,” 21st Centu | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Rains v. Rains
green
1 sentence2022“In this context, ‘[a]n abuse of discretion is found only in extreme cases in which the result is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will or the exercise of passion or bias.’ ” Id. (quotation marks, and citation omitted). -2- “The trial court’s findings regarding the best-interest factors of MCL 722.23 are . . . reviewed under the great-weight-of-the-evidence standard.” Id. at 6. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re BENNETT ESTATE
green
1 sentence2022Although the “great weight of the evidence” standard is applicable to factual findings rendered in child custody matters, see MCL 722.28; McIntosh v McIntosh, 282 Mich App 471, 474 ; 768 NW2d 325 (2009), in other civil matters tried without a jury, including probate matters, the applicable standard is the “clearly erroneous” standard, see Tuttle v Dep’t of State Hwys, 397 Mich 44, 46 ; 243 NW2d 244 (1976) (adopting the clear error standard for bench trials and rejecting the lower court’s “unduly restrictive” approach of applying the great-weight-of-the-evidence standard to a trial court’s verd | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Pernell v. ALLLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
green
1 sentence2022Although the “great weight of the evidence” standard is applicable to factual findings rendered in child custody matters, see MCL 722.28; McIntosh v McIntosh, 282 Mich App 471, 474 ; 768 NW2d 325 (2009), in other civil matters tried without a jury, including probate matters, the applicable standard is the “clearly erroneous” standard, see Tuttle v Dep’t of State Hwys, 397 Mich 44, 46 ; 243 NW2d 244 (1976) (adopting the clear error standard for bench trials and rejecting the lower court’s “unduly restrictive” approach of applying the great-weight-of-the-evidence standard to a trial court’s verd | 1 | 2022–2022 |
21st Century Premier Insurance Company v. Zufelt
green
2 sentences2022We defer to the probate court on matters of credibility, and will give broad deference to findings made by the probate court because of its unique vantage point regarding witnesses, their testimony, and other influencing factors not readily available to the reviewing court. [Lewis Estate v Rosebrook, 329 Mich App 85 , 93; 941 NW2d 74 (2019) (quotation marks and citations omitted.)] The probate court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, Trader v Comerica Bank, 293 Mich App 210, 215 ; 809 NW2d 429 (2011), including “whether the trial court properly applied equitable principles,” 21st Centu 2022We defer to the probate court on matters of credibility, and will give broad deference to findings made by the probate court because of its unique vantage point regarding witnesses, their testimony, and other influencing factors not readily available to the reviewing court. [Lewis Estate v Rosebrook, 329 Mich App 85 , 93; 941 NW2d 74 (2019) (quotation marks and citations omitted.)] The probate court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, Trader v Comerica Bank, 293 Mich App 210, 215 ; 809 NW2d 429 (2011), including “whether the trial court properly applied equitable principles,” 21st Centu | 1 | 2022–2022 |
McIntosh v. McIntosh
green
1 sentence2022Although the “great weight of the evidence” standard is applicable to factual findings rendered in child custody matters, see MCL 722.28; McIntosh v McIntosh, 282 Mich App 471, 474 ; 768 NW2d 325 (2009), in other civil matters tried without a jury, including probate matters, the applicable standard is the “clearly erroneous” standard, see Tuttle v Dep’t of State Hwys, 397 Mich 44, 46 ; 243 NW2d 244 (1976) (adopting the clear error standard for bench trials and rejecting the lower court’s “unduly restrictive” approach of applying the great-weight-of-the-evidence standard to a trial court’s verd | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Tuttle v. Department of State Highways
green
2 sentences2022Although the “great weight of the evidence” standard is applicable to factual findings rendered in child custody matters, see MCL 722.28; McIntosh v McIntosh, 282 Mich App 471, 474 ; 768 NW2d 325 (2009), in other civil matters tried without a jury, including probate matters, the applicable standard is the “clearly erroneous” standard, see Tuttle v Dep’t of State Hwys, 397 Mich 44, 46 ; 243 NW2d 244 (1976) (adopting the clear error standard for bench trials and rejecting the lower court’s “unduly restrictive” approach of applying the great-weight-of-the-evidence standard to a trial court’s verd 2022Although the “great weight of the evidence” standard is applicable to factual findings rendered in child custody matters, see MCL 722.28; McIntosh v McIntosh, 282 Mich App 471, 474 ; 768 NW2d 325 (2009), in other civil matters tried without a jury, including probate matters, the applicable standard is the “clearly erroneous” standard, see Tuttle v Dep’t of State Hwys, 397 Mich 44, 46 ; 243 NW2d 244 (1976) (adopting the clear error standard for bench trials and rejecting the lower court’s “unduly restrictive” approach of applying the great-weight-of-the-evidence standard to a trial court’s verd | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Corr
green
1 sentence2016To convict a defendant under MCL 750.81d(l), the prosecution must prove: “(1) the defendant assaulted, battered, wounded, resisted, obstructed, opposed, or endangered a police officer, and (2) the defendant knew or had reason to know that the *414 person that the defendant assaulted, battered, wounded, resisted, obstructed, opposed, or endangered was a police officer performing his or her duties.” Corr, 287 Mich App at 503 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hayes v. Hayes
green
2 sentences2016Id.; Hunter v Hunter, 484 Mich 247, 257 ; 771 NW2d 694 (2009); Hayes v Hayes, 209 Mich App 385, 387-388 ; 532 NW2d 190 (1995). 2016Id.; Hunter v Hunter, 484 Mich 247, 257 ; 771 NW2d 694 (2009); Hayes v Hayes, 209 Mich App 385, 387-388 ; 532 NW2d 190 (1995). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hunter v. Hunter
green
2 sentences2016Id.; Hunter v Hunter, 484 Mich 247, 257 ; 771 NW2d 694 (2009); Hayes v Hayes, 209 Mich App 385, 387-388 ; 532 NW2d 190 (1995). 2016Id.; Hunter v Hunter, 484 Mich 247, 257 ; 771 NW2d 694 (2009); Hayes v Hayes, 209 Mich App 385, 387-388 ; 532 NW2d 190 (1995). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
LaFleche v. Ybarra
green
2 sentences2012The great-weight-of-the-evidence standard applies to all findings of fact; under this standard, “the trial court’s findings will be sustained unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.” Id. 2012“An abuse of discretion standard applies to the trial court’s discretionary rulings such as custody decisions.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.