19 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1931–2023 1 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. Pegenaugreen2 sentences2017See id. at 300 , 523 N.W.2d 325 ("[W]e have left open the question whether in Michigan [ MCL 333.7531 ] can or should be interpreted to shift to defendant the burden of persuasion *346 in addition to the burden of production."). 13 Although Justice MALLETT relied on this Court's opinions in Bates , Bailey , and Wooster , to abstain from ruling that MCL 333.7531 shifted both the burden of production and persuasion to a defendant claiming an exemption or exception under the CSA, these opinions are not binding on this Court. 2017See id. at 300 , 523 N.W.2d 325 ("[W]e have left open the question whether in Michigan [ MCL 333.7531 ] can or should be interpreted to shift to defendant the burden of persuasion *346 in addition to the burden of production."). 13 Although Justice MALLETT relied on this Court's opinions in Bates , Bailey , and Wooster , to abstain from ruling that MCL 333.7531 shifted both the burden of production and persuasion to a defendant claiming an exemption or exception under the CSA, these opinions are not binding on this Court. | 1 | 6 |
People v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2017In Henderson , 391 Mich. at 616 , 218 N.W.2d 2 , our Supreme Court concluded that, in the context of a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon, once the prosecution establishes a prima facie violation, the defendant has the burden of offering some proof that he or she has some license to carry the weapon, after which the prosecution is obliged to establish the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt. 16 Furthermore, we agree with Justice Boyle 's opinion that the term "burden of proof" by its plain meaning encompasses both the burdens of production and persuasion. 1994Similar to the statute at issue in the instant case, the Uniform Securities Act provides: In any proceeding under this act, the burden of proving an exemption or an exception is upon the person claiming it. [MCL 451.802(c); MSA 19.776(402)(c).] When rejecting the defendant’s constitutional challenge, the Court reflected on the proof needed to rebut the statutory presumption. .The Uniform Securities Act provision, read in light of People v Henderson, supra, must be interpreted to mean that once the state establishes a prima facie case of statutory violation, the burden of going forward, i.e., o | 1 | 3 |
Benedict v. Department of Treasurygreen1 sentence2023See Benedict, 236 Mich App at 563 . -4- for that property. | 1 | 1 |
Adams Outdoor Advertising v. City of East Lansinggreen2 sentences2014Further, “exemptions 35 Adams Outdoor Advertising v East Lansing, 463 Mich 17 , 27 n 7; 614 NW2d 634 (2000) (“People are presumed to know the law.”). 36 See generally MCL 205.68; MCL 205.104a. 15 are the antithesis of tax equality.”37 If a mandatory recordkeeping requirement existed in order to facilitate an exemption claim (rather than to facilitate taxation), it would promote exemptions and, in turn, tax inequality. 2014Further, “exemptions 35 Adams Outdoor Advertising v East Lansing, 463 Mich 17 , 27 n 7; 614 NW2d 634 (2000) (“People are presumed to know the law.”). 36 See generally MCL 205.68; MCL 205.104a. 15 are the antithesis of tax equality.”37 If a mandatory recordkeeping requirement existed in order to facilitate an exemption claim (rather than to facilitate taxation), it would promote exemptions and, in turn, tax inequality. | 1 | 1 |
City of Detroit v. Beckmangreen1 sentence1994The burden of proof is upon the person to rebut the presumption. [MCL 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531).] [3] MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424. [4] MCL 451.701; MSA 19.776(301). [5] The applicable statute states: In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation. [MCL 776.20; MSA 28.1274(1).] [6] See also People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 516 ; 283 NW | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kimbroughgreen1 sentence1994The burden of proof is upon the person to rebut the presumption. [MCL 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531).] [3] MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424. [4] MCL 451.701; MSA 19.776(301). [5] The applicable statute states: In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation. [MCL 776.20; MSA 28.1274(1).] [6] See also People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 516 ; 283 NW | 1 | 1 |
Wyrzykowski v. Buddsgreen2 sentences1968See Wyrzykowski v. Budds (1949), 324 Mich 731 , holding that Hamtramek’s city charter provision exempting from creditor action “monies owed” to retired employees and their families protected the pension until paid to the employee. 1968The Court stated (p 350): "We do not dwell upon the slight difference in wording of the exemption clause [s of the 2 separate Federal statutory provisions applicable to the (1) pension and insurance payments and (2) adjusted compensation bonus bonds] * * *, but rather stress the difference of congressional purpose in enacting the entirely distinct statutes of which those sections are parts." The Court held (p 349) that since "the very purpose of a pension is to provide the beneficiary with support and maintenance, it could not have been the intent of congress to deny the State of Michigan reim | 1 | 1 |
Mobile & Ohio Railroad v. Tennesseegreen1 sentence1931“The term ‘dividend’ in its technical as well as in its ordinary acceptation means that portion of its profits which the corporation, by its directory, sets apart for ratable division among its shareholders. * * * “It must be assumed that the legislature of Tennessee used the term ‘dividends,’ in the exemption clause under consideration, in the general sense indicated, and had reference to that portion of the net earnings of the company which legitimately constituted profits and could be rightfully apportioned or distributed among shareholders.” Mobile & Ohio R. v. Tennessee, 153 U. S. 486, 49 | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Lister v. Clausengreen1 sentence1931See, also, Rossi v. Rex Consolidated Mining Co., 108 Wash. 296 ( 183 Pac. 120 ). | 1 | 1 |
Rossi v. Rex Consolidated Mining Co.green1 sentence1931See, also, Rossi v. Rex Consolidated Mining Co., 108 Wash. 296 ( 183 Pac. 120 ). | 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. Dempster
green
2 sentences2017But that exemption applies to “[a] transaction in a note, bond, debenture, or other evidence of indebtedness secured by a mortgage or other security agreement,” MCL 451.2202(k), and is therefore not applicable to present circumstances. 12 MCL 451.802(d) provided that “[i]n any proceeding under this act, the burden of proving an exemption or an exception is upon the person claiming it.” People v Dempster, 396 Mich 700, 711 ; 242 NW2d 381 (1976) (quotation marks omitted). -12- (1) the property at issue must have some value, (2) the property belonged to someone other than the defendant, (3) someo 2017But that exemption applies to “[a] transaction in a note, bond, debenture, or other evidence of indebtedness secured by a mortgage or other security agreement,” MCL 451.2202(k), and is therefore not applicable to present circumstances. 12 MCL 451.802(d) provided that “[i]n any proceeding under this act, the burden of proving an exemption or an exception is upon the person claiming it.” People v Dempster, 396 Mich 700, 711 ; 242 NW2d 381 (1976) (quotation marks omitted). -12- (1) the property at issue must have some value, (2) the property belonged to someone other than the defendant, (3) someo | 4 | 1994–2017 |
People v. Mason
green
2 sentences2017But that exemption applies to “[a] transaction in a note, bond, debenture, or other evidence of indebtedness secured by a mortgage or other security agreement,” MCL 451.2202(k), and is therefore not applicable to present circumstances. 12 MCL 451.802(d) provided that “[i]n any proceeding under this act, the burden of proving an exemption or an exception is upon the person claiming it.” People v Dempster, 396 Mich 700, 711 ; 242 NW2d 381 (1976) (quotation marks omitted). -12- (1) the property at issue must have some value, (2) the property belonged to someone other than the defendant, (3) someo 2017But that exemption applies to “[a] transaction in a note, bond, debenture, or other evidence of indebtedness secured by a mortgage or other security agreement,” MCL 451.2202(k), and is therefore not applicable to present circumstances. 12 MCL 451.802(d) provided that “[i]n any proceeding under this act, the burden of proving an exemption or an exception is upon the person claiming it.” People v Dempster, 396 Mich 700, 711 ; 242 NW2d 381 (1976) (quotation marks omitted). -12- (1) the property at issue must have some value, (2) the property belonged to someone other than the defendant, (3) someo | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Christenson
green
2 sentences2017But that exemption applies to “[a] transaction in a note, bond, debenture, or other evidence of indebtedness secured by a mortgage or other security agreement,” MCL 451.2202(k), and is therefore not applicable to present circumstances. 12 MCL 451.802(d) provided that “[i]n any proceeding under this act, the burden of proving an exemption or an exception is upon the person claiming it.” People v Dempster, 396 Mich 700, 711 ; 242 NW2d 381 (1976) (quotation marks omitted). -12- (1) the property at issue must have some value, (2) the property belonged to someone other than the defendant, (3) someo 2017But that exemption applies to “[a] transaction in a note, bond, debenture, or other evidence of indebtedness secured by a mortgage or other security agreement,” MCL 451.2202(k), and is therefore not applicable to present circumstances. 12 MCL 451.802(d) provided that “[i]n any proceeding under this act, the burden of proving an exemption or an exception is upon the person claiming it.” People v Dempster, 396 Mich 700, 711 ; 242 NW2d 381 (1976) (quotation marks omitted). -12- (1) the property at issue must have some value, (2) the property belonged to someone other than the defendant, (3) someo | 2 | 2017–2017 |
William Mueller & Sons, Inc v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences2020Yet, as this Court held in William Mueller & Sons, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 189 Mich App 570, 574 ; 473 NW2d 783 (1991), the certification provision did not create a requirement related to “agricultural products,” but rather provided a means for the creation of prima facie evidence in support of an exemption claim. 2020Yet, as this Court held in William Mueller & Sons, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 189 Mich App 570, 574 ; 473 NW2d 783 (1991), the certification provision did not create a requirement related to “agricultural products,” but rather provided a means for the creation of prima facie evidence in support of an exemption claim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Hartuniewicz
green
1 sentence2017Cf. Pegenau, 447 Mich at 293 ; Hartuniewicz, 294 Mich App at 245 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Ream
green
1 sentence2017However, even assuming that defendant's double-jeopardy argument is also problematic under MCR 6.310(D), as we have discussed, it would be properly considered in the ineffective-assistance context. 7 People v. Ream , 481 Mich. 223 , 238; 750 N.W.2d 536 (2008). 8 While unpublished opinions are not precedentially binding, MCR 7.215(C)(1), they may be considered for their persuasive value. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Hermiz
green
2 sentences2017Therefore, under Mezy , 453 Mich. at 282 -283 , 551 N.W.2d 389 (opinion by WEAVER , J.); id. at 286 , 551 N.W.2d 389 ( BRICKLEY , C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), defendant bears both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion to establish these exceptions or exemptions and must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. 2017Therefore, under Mezy , 453 Mich. at 282 -283 , 551 N.W.2d 389 (opinion by WEAVER , J.); id. at 286 , 551 N.W.2d 389 ( BRICKLEY , C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), defendant bears both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion to establish these exceptions or exemptions and must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People of Michigan v. Robert Tuttle
green
2 sentences2017The burden of proof is upon the person to rebut that presumption. [Emphasis added.] In People v. Hartwick , 498 Mich. 192 , 216, 870 N.W.2d 37 (2015), our Supreme Court explained that there are two distinct legal concepts involved in the assignment of the burden of proof: The first, the burden of production, requires a party to produce some evidence of that party's propositions of fact. 2017The burden of proof is upon the person to rebut that presumption. [Emphasis added.] In People v. Hartwick , 498 Mich. 192 , 216, 870 N.W.2d 37 (2015), our Supreme Court explained that there are two distinct legal concepts involved in the assignment of the burden of proof: The first, the burden of production, requires a party to produce some evidence of that party's propositions of fact. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Granger Land Development Co. v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences2015Granger Land Dev Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 286 Mich App 601, 610 ; 780 NW2d 611 (2009). 1 Our discussion in this section does not include the eventual plugging of the finished wells by cementing them closed. 2015Granger Land Dev Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 286 Mich App 601, 610 ; 780 NW2d 611 (2009). 1 Our discussion in this section does not include the eventual plugging of the finished wells by cementing them closed. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Achtenberg v. City of East Lansing
green
2 sentences1994The burden of proof is upon the person to rebut the presumption. [MCL 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531).] [3] MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424. [4] MCL 451.701; MSA 19.776(301). [5] The applicable statute states: In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation. [MCL 776.20; MSA 28.1274(1).] [6] See also People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 516 ; 283 NW 1994The burden of proof is upon the person to rebut the presumption. [MCL 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531).] [3] MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424. [4] MCL 451.701; MSA 19.776(301). [5] The applicable statute states: In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation. [MCL 776.20; MSA 28.1274(1).] [6] See also People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 516 ; 283 NW | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Bates
green
2 sentences1994The burden of proof is upon the person to rebut the presumption. [MCL 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531).] [3] MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424. [4] MCL 451.701; MSA 19.776(301). [5] The applicable statute states: In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation. [MCL 776.20; MSA 28.1274(1).] [6] See also People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 516 ; 283 NW 1994The burden of proof is upon the person to rebut the presumption. [MCL 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531).] [3] MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424. [4] MCL 451.701; MSA 19.776(301). [5] The applicable statute states: In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation. [MCL 776.20; MSA 28.1274(1).] [6] See also People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 516 ; 283 NW | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Bailey
green
1 sentence1994The burden of proof is upon the person to rebut the presumption. [MCL 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531).] [3] MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424. [4] MCL 451.701; MSA 19.776(301). [5] The applicable statute states: In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation. [MCL 776.20; MSA 28.1274(1).] [6] See also People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 516 ; 283 NW | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Martin v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1994The burden of proof is upon the person to rebut the presumption. [MCL 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531).] [3] MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424. [4] MCL 451.701; MSA 19.776(301). [5] The applicable statute states: In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation. [MCL 776.20; MSA 28.1274(1).] [6] See also People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 516 ; 283 NW 1994The burden of proof is upon the person to rebut the presumption. [MCL 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531).] [3] MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424. [4] MCL 451.701; MSA 19.776(301). [5] The applicable statute states: In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation. [MCL 776.20; MSA 28.1274(1).] [6] See also People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 516 ; 283 NW | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Spencer v. Wall Wire Products Co.
neutral
1 sentence1968For holdings requiring *403 such exhaustion of remedies, see Cortez v. Ford Motor Company (1957), 349 Mich 108 ; Spencer v. Wall Wire Products Company (1959), 357 Mich 296 ; Kennedy v. UAW-AFL-CIO Local No. 659 (1966), 3 Mich App 629 ; and Alarcon v. Fabricon Products, Division of Eagle-Picher Company (1966), 5 Mich App 25 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Cortez v. Ford Motor Company
green
1 sentence1968For holdings requiring *403 such exhaustion of remedies, see Cortez v. Ford Motor Company (1957), 349 Mich 108 ; Spencer v. Wall Wire Products Company (1959), 357 Mich 296 ; Kennedy v. UAW-AFL-CIO Local No. 659 (1966), 3 Mich App 629 ; and Alarcon v. Fabricon Products, Division of Eagle-Picher Company (1966), 5 Mich App 25 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Alarcon v. FABRICON PRODUCTS DIVISION OF EAGLE-PICHER CO.
green
1 sentence1968For holdings requiring *403 such exhaustion of remedies, see Cortez v. Ford Motor Company (1957), 349 Mich 108 ; Spencer v. Wall Wire Products Company (1959), 357 Mich 296 ; Kennedy v. UAW-AFL-CIO Local No. 659 (1966), 3 Mich App 629 ; and Alarcon v. Fabricon Products, Division of Eagle-Picher Company (1966), 5 Mich App 25 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Kennedy v. UAW-AFL-CIO LOCAL NO. 659
green
1 sentence1968For holdings requiring *403 such exhaustion of remedies, see Cortez v. Ford Motor Company (1957), 349 Mich 108 ; Spencer v. Wall Wire Products Company (1959), 357 Mich 296 ; Kennedy v. UAW-AFL-CIO Local No. 659 (1966), 3 Mich App 629 ; and Alarcon v. Fabricon Products, Division of Eagle-Picher Company (1966), 5 Mich App 25 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
State Department of Public Welfare v. National Bank of Commerce
neutral
2 sentences1942The distinction between the two sections is well delineated in the recent excellent decision of the supreme court of Wisconsin in Re Guardianship of Letourneau , 238 Wis. 473 ( 300 N.W. 248 ). 1942The distinction between the two sections is well delineated in the recent excellent decision of the supreme court of Wisconsin in Re Guardianship of Letourneau , 238 Wis. 473 ( 300 N.W. 248 ). | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.