Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2026 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shade v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2025Both the statutory best-interest factors in MCL 722.23 and the parenting-time factors in MCL 722.27a(7) “are relevant to parenting time decisions.” Shade, 291 Mich App at 31 . 2024“Both the statutory best interest factors in the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.23, and the factors listed in the parenting time statute, MCL 722.27a(6),[1] are relevant to parenting 1 The parenting-time factors are now set forth in MCL 722.27a(7), which provides that a court may consider the following factors when determining the frequency, duration, and type of parenting time to be granted: (a) The existence of any special circumstances or needs of the child. (b) Whether the child is a nursing child less than 6 months of age, or less than 1 year of age if the child receives substantial nutrition | 5 | 11 |
Vodvarka v. Grasmeyergreen2 sentences2016But, in the absence of a dispute, a trial court’s failure to address the parenting-time factors under MCL 722.27a(6) does not warrant reversal when it is 7 Given this conclusion, we reject plaintiff’s reliance on Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003), for the applicable standard in her brief on appeal. 2016But, in the absence of a dispute, a trial court’s failure to address the parenting-time factors under MCL 722.27a(6) does not warrant reversal when it is 7 Given this conclusion, we reject plaintiff’s reliance on Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003), for the applicable standard in her brief on appeal. | 1 | 3 |
Cain v Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2022See Cain, 451 Mich at 496 . | 1 | 1 |
Manuel v. Gillgreen2 sentences2019See Manuel v Gill, 481 Mich 637, 647 ; 753 NW2d 48 (2008) (stating that the term “may” is considered permissive, while the term “shall” is considered mandatory). 2019See Manuel v Gill, 481 Mich 637, 647 ; 753 NW2d 48 (2008) (stating that the term “may” is considered permissive, while the term “shall” is considered mandatory). | 1 | 1 |
Porter v. Portergreen2 sentences2018The order in such a case is not in the nature of a punishment, but is coercive, to compel him to act in accordance with the order of the court.” Dougherty, supra at 95 , quoting People ex rel Attorney General v Yarowsky, 236 Mich 169, 171 ; 210 NW 246 (1926) (citation omitted). [Porter, 285 Mich App at 455-456 .] In this case, the trial court, in its order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, stated that “the [c]ourt held plaintiff in civil contempt for a parenting time violation pursuant to MCL 552.644(2)[.]” As the Porter Court recognized, MCL 552.644 “authorizes a friend of the - 2018The order in such a case is not in the nature of a punishment, but is coercive, to compel him to act in accordance with the order of the court.” Dougherty, supra at 95 , quoting People ex rel Attorney General v Yarowsky, 236 Mich 169, 171 ; 210 NW 246 (1926) (citation omitted). [Porter, 285 Mich App at 455-456 .] In this case, the trial court, in its order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, stated that “the [c]ourt held plaintiff in civil contempt for a parenting time violation pursuant to MCL 552.644(2)[.]” As the Porter Court recognized, MCL 552.644 “authorizes a friend of the - | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walters v. Nadell
green
2 sentences2026Walters v Nadell, 481 Mich 377, 383 ; 751 NW2d 431 (2008). 2026Walters v Nadell, 481 Mich 377, 383 ; 751 NW2d 431 (2008). | 2 | 2024–2026 |
Mitcham v. City of Detroit
green
2 sentences2017“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203 ; 94 NW2d 388 (1959). 2017“It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203 ; 94 NW2d 388 (1959). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Contempt of Henry
green
1 sentence2022Respondent has not demonstrated any error with the manner in which the show-cause hearing was conducted.5 Further, we are not persuaded that the trial court’s comments during the parenting-time hearing reflected any bias or a “predetermined outcome.” Respondent has not demonstrated error, let alone plain error. 4 “To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich App at 666 . (citations omitted). 5 The | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People Ex Rel. Attorney General v. Yarowsky
neutral
2 sentences2018The order in such a case is not in the nature of a punishment, but is coercive, to compel him to act in accordance with the order of the court.” Dougherty, supra at 95 , quoting People ex rel Attorney General v Yarowsky, 236 Mich 169, 171 ; 210 NW 246 (1926) (citation omitted). [Porter, 285 Mich App at 455-456 .] In this case, the trial court, in its order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, stated that “the [c]ourt held plaintiff in civil contempt for a parenting time violation pursuant to MCL 552.644(2)[.]” As the Porter Court recognized, MCL 552.644 “authorizes a friend of the - 2018The order in such a case is not in the nature of a punishment, but is coercive, to compel him to act in accordance with the order of the court.” Dougherty, supra at 95 , quoting People ex rel Attorney General v Yarowsky, 236 Mich 169, 171 ; 210 NW 246 (1926) (citation omitted). [Porter, 285 Mich App at 455-456 .] In this case, the trial court, in its order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, stated that “the [c]ourt held plaintiff in civil contempt for a parenting time violation pursuant to MCL 552.644(2)[.]” As the Porter Court recognized, MCL 552.644 “authorizes a friend of the - | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Re Contempt of Dougherty
green
1 sentence2018The order in such a case is not in the nature of a punishment, but is coercive, to compel him to act in accordance with the order of the court.” Dougherty, supra at 95 , quoting People ex rel Attorney General v Yarowsky, 236 Mich 169, 171 ; 210 NW 246 (1926) (citation omitted). [Porter, 285 Mich App at 455-456 .] In this case, the trial court, in its order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, stated that “the [c]ourt held plaintiff in civil contempt for a parenting time violation pursuant to MCL 552.644(2)[.]” As the Porter Court recognized, MCL 552.644 “authorizes a friend of the - | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.