20 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2026 8 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. Hardy; People v. Glenngreen2 sentences2026See People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465, 475-476 ; 802 NW2d 627 (2010); see also People v Loew, 340 Mich App 100 , 125-129; 985 NW2d 255 (2022). -6- A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review a trial court’s factual findings under the sentencing guidelines for clear error and review de novo whether those factual findings “are adequate to satisfy the scoring conditions prescribed by statute[.]” People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430, 438 ; 835 NW2d 340 (2013). 2026We review a trial court’s factual findings under the sentencing guidelines for clear error, and we review de novo whether those factual findings “are adequate to satisfy the scoring conditions prescribed by statute[.]” People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430, 438 ; 835 NW2d 340 (2013). | 1 | 17 |
People v. Bennettgreen1 sentence2026See People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465, 475-476 ; 802 NW2d 627 (2010); see also People v Loew, 340 Mich App 100 , 125-129; 985 NW2d 255 (2022). -6- A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review a trial court’s factual findings under the sentencing guidelines for clear error and review de novo whether those factual findings “are adequate to satisfy the scoring conditions prescribed by statute[.]” People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430, 438 ; 835 NW2d 340 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Armstronggreen2 sentences2020People v Armstrong, 305 Mich App 230, 242, 245 ; 851 NW2d 856 (2014). 2020People v Armstrong, 305 Mich App 230, 242, 245 ; 851 NW2d 856 (2014). | 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. Williams
green
2 sentences2025People v Williams, 275 Mich App 194, 200 ; 737 NW2d 797 (2007). -11- We review the trial court’s findings regarding an assessment of points under the sentencing guidelines for clear error, and a preponderance of the evidence must support the factual findings. 2025People v Williams, 275 Mich App 194, 200 ; 737 NW2d 797 (2007). -11- We review the trial court’s findings regarding an assessment of points under the sentencing guidelines for clear error, and a preponderance of the evidence must support the factual findings. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. O'BRIEN
green
1 sentence2016People v Hardy, 4 Although there is testimony that Crittenden only interviewed defendant once and had limited other interactions with him, identification used to establish a proper foundation “is not required to be absolute or certain.” O’Brien, 113 Mich App at 204 . -4- 494 Mich 430, 438 ; 835 NW2d 340 (2013). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Smith
green
2 sentences2015This Court reviews a trial court’s reasons for a departure from the sentencing guidelines for clear error, while, “[t]he conclusion that a reason is objective and verifiable is reviewed as a matter of law.” People v Smith, 482 Mich 292, 300 ; 754 NW2d 284 (2008). 2015This Court reviews a trial court’s reasons for a departure from the sentencing guidelines for clear error, while, “[t]he conclusion that a reason is objective and verifiable is reviewed as a matter of law.” People v Smith, 482 Mich 292, 300 ; 754 NW2d 284 (2008). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.