nonexhaustive factors in Michigan

2024To address this question, Michigan courts consider the nonexhaustive factors set forth in Kennedy v Mendoza-Martinez, 372 US 144 (1963): (1) whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint, (2) whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment, (3) whether the sanction comes into play only on a finding of scienter, (4) whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment—i.e., retribution and deterrence, (5) whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime, (6) whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is ass

2024However, the Legislature’s intent will be rejected only when “a party challenging the statute provides the clearest proof that the statutory scheme is so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the State’s intention to deem it civil.” Kansas v Hendricks, 521 US 346, 361 ; 117 S Ct 2072 ; 138 L Ed 2d 501 (1997) (quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted; emphasis added). because we ultimately conclude that defendant has satisfied the “punishment” inquiry outlined in People v Earl, 495 Mich 33, 38 ; 845 NW2d 721 (2014). 10 The United States Supreme Court has provided the followin

2022Trial courts should consider the following nonexhaustive factors before imposing the severe sanction of dismissal: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995), citing Dean v T

2022Trial courts should consider the following nonexhaustive factors before imposing the severe sanction of dismissal: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995), citing Dean v T

2022Before imposing the severe sanction of dismissal, the trial court should consider the following nonexhaustive factors: (1) whether the violation was wilful [sic] or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995), citin

2022Trial courts should also consider the following nonexhaustive factors (Dean factors) before imposing the severe sanction of dismissal: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (19

2022Trial courts should consider the following nonexhaustive factors before imposing the severe sanction of dismissal: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995), citing Dean v T

2022Trial courts should consider the following nonexhaustive factors before imposing the severe sanction of dismissal: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995), citing Dean v T

2022Trial courts should also consider the following nonexhaustive factors (Dean factors) before imposing the severe sanction of dismissal: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (19

2022Trial courts should also consider the following nonexhaustive factors (Dean factors) before imposing the severe sanction of dismissal: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (19

2021Specifically, the trial court must consider the following nonexhaustive 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 apparent to the client, that acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other em

2021Specifically, the trial court must consider the following nonexhaustive 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 apparent to the client, that acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other em

2026In Watkins, our Supreme Court outlined the following nonexhaustive factors that may be addressed when determining the admissibility of other-acts evidence under a closely related statute, MCL 768.27a: (1) the dissimilarity between the other acts and the charged crime, (2) the temporal proximity of the other acts to the charged crime, (3) the infrequency of the other acts, (4) the presence of intervening acts, (5) the lack of reliability of the evidence supporting the occurrence of the other acts, and (6) the lack of need for evidence beyond the complainant’s and the defendant’s testimony. [Wat

2025Betts, 507 Mich at 545, 549-562; Smith, 538 US at 97 , citing Kennedy v Mendoza-Martinez, 372 US 144, 168-169 ; 83 S Ct 554 ; 9 L Ed 2d 644 (1963). 22 22 The Mendoza-Martinez Court considered two additional factors: whether a sanction comes into play only on a finding of scienter and whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime.

2025The Webster Court then adopted the analysis announced in Reitmeyer v Schultz Equip & Parts Co, Inc, 237 Mich App 332 ; 602 NW2d 596 (1999), for determining whether a current or former court rule should apply, reasoning that “an individualized determination guided by the nonexhaustive factors from Reitmeyer—including timing, purpose of the newly adopted rule, possible gamesmanship, and reliance—is appropriate given that these factors bear on whether injustice would occur.” Webster, ___ Mich at ___; slip op at 10.

2025The Webster Court then adopted the analysis announced in Reitmeyer v Schultz Equip & Parts Co, Inc, 237 Mich App 332 ; 602 NW2d 596 (1999), for determining whether a current or former court rule should apply, reasoning that “an individualized determination guided by the nonexhaustive factors from Reitmeyer—including timing, purpose of the newly adopted rule, possible gamesmanship, and reliance—is appropriate given that these factors bear on whether injustice would occur.” Webster, ___ Mich at ___; slip op at 10.

2021A trial court may consider the following nonexhaustive factors when determining whether a sentence is reasonable: (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. [People v Walden, 319 Mich App 344 , 352-353; 901 NW2d 142 (2017) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] A trial court may impose a de

2021A trial court may consider the following nonexhaustive factors when determining whether a sentence is reasonable: (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. [People v Walden, 319 Mich App 344 , 352-353; 901 NW2d 142 (2017) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] A trial court may impose a de

2021This Court has instructed that a trial court should consider the following nonexhaustive factors before imposing the sanction of dismissal: (1) whether the violation was wilful [sic] or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Vicencio v Jaime Ramirez, MD, PC, 211 Mich App 50

2021A sentencing court is no longer required to state “substantial and compelling reasons” for a departure sentence, based on the victim’s testimony “that defendant threw her to the ground and partially inserted his penis into her vagina once, and that he then threw her onto the trunk of the car where he inserted his finger into her vagina, partially inserted his penis into her vagina twice, and fully inserted his penis into her vagina once.”). -3- but it “must justify the sentence imposed in order to facilitate appellate review.” Lockridge, 498 Mich at 392 .

2020While we have routinely cited these four-general factors, we have also recognized that “[n]o single factor is controlling and, indeed, the list of factors is nonexclusive and other factors may be considered as each individual case requires.” Rakowski v Sarb, 269 Mich App 619, 625 ; 713 NW2d 787 (2006).

2020While we have routinely cited these four-general factors, we have also recognized that “[n]o single factor is controlling and, indeed, the list of factors is nonexclusive and other factors may be considered as each individual case requires.” Rakowski v Sarb, 269 Mich App 619, 625 ; 713 NW2d 787 (2006).

2020We recited the same nonexhaustive factors in Adanalic, 309 Mich App at 191 .

1999People v Sexton, 458 Mich 43, 66 ; 580 NW2d 404 (1998).

1999People v Sexton, 458 Mich 43, 66 ; 580 NW2d 404 (1998).