foundation rule in Michigan

2015The appropriate ground(s) should be relevant to at least one of the twelve statutory best interest factors, and must be of such magnitude to have a significant effect on the child’s well-being. [Id. at 512.] To show a change in circumstances, “a movant must prove that, since the entry of the last custody order, the conditions surrounding custody of the child, which have or could have a significant effect on the child’s well-being, have materially changed.” Id. at 513 . -4- The circuit court has already provided the foundation for this analysis.

2009Maynard v. Bd. of Canvassers of the Kent Co First Representative Dist., 84 Mich. 228, 256 , 47 N.W. 756 (1890) (CAHILL, J., dissenting).

2009Maynard v Bd of Canvassers of the Kent Co First Representative Dist, 84 Mich 228, 256 ; 47 NW 756 (1890) (Cahill, J., dissenting).

2000Id. at 137 , 76 N.W.2d 75 .

2000Id. at 137 .

1996E.g., State v Garrett, 119 Idaho 878 ; 811 P2d 488 (1991); State ex rel Hamilton v City Court of Mesa, 165 Ariz 514; 799 P2d 855 (1990); State v Clark, 234 Mont 222 ; 762 P2d 853 (1988); Superior Court, supra; Anderson v State, 866 SW2d 685 (Tex App, 1993); People v Buening, 229 Ill App 3d 538; 170 Ill Dec 542; 592 NE2d 1222 (1992); State v Armstrong, 561 So 2d 883 (La App, 1990).

1996E.g., State v Garrett, 119 Idaho 878 ; 811 P2d 488 (1991); State ex rel Hamilton v City Court of Mesa, 165 Ariz 514; 799 P2d 855 (1990); State v Clark, 234 Mont 222 ; 762 P2d 853 (1988); Superior Court, supra; Anderson v State, 866 SW2d 685 (Tex App, 1993); People v Buening, 229 Ill App 3d 538; 170 Ill Dec 542; 592 NE2d 1222 (1992); State v Armstrong, 561 So 2d 883 (La App, 1990).

1996E.g., State v Garrett, 119 Idaho 878 ; 811 P2d 488 (1991); State ex rel Hamilton v City Court of Mesa, 165 Ariz 514; 799 P2d 855 (1990); State v Clark, 234 Mont 222 ; 762 P2d 853 (1988); Superior Court, supra; Anderson v State, 866 SW2d 685 (Tex App, 1993); People v Buening, 229 Ill App 3d 538; 170 Ill Dec 542; 592 NE2d 1222 (1992); State v Armstrong, 561 So 2d 883 (La App, 1990).

1996E.g., State v Garrett, 119 Idaho 878 ; 811 P2d 488 (1991); State ex rel Hamilton v City Court of Mesa, 165 Ariz 514; 799 P2d 855 (1990); State v Clark, 234 Mont 222 ; 762 P2d 853 (1988); Superior Court, supra; Anderson v State, 866 SW2d 685 (Tex App, 1993); People v Buening, 229 Ill App 3d 538; 170 Ill Dec 542; 592 NE2d 1222 (1992); State v Armstrong, 561 So 2d 883 (La App, 1990).

1996E.g., State v Garrett, 119 Idaho 878 ; 811 P2d 488 (1991); State ex rel Hamilton v City Court of Mesa, 165 Ariz 514; 799 P2d 855 (1990); State v Clark, 234 Mont 222 ; 762 P2d 853 (1988); Superior Court, supra; Anderson v State, 866 SW2d 685 (Tex App, 1993); People v Buening, 229 Ill App 3d 538; 170 Ill Dec 542; 592 NE2d 1222 (1992); State v Armstrong, 561 So 2d 883 (La App, 1990).

1996E.g., State v Garrett, 119 Idaho 878 ; 811 P2d 488 (1991); State ex rel Hamilton v City Court of Mesa, 165 Ariz 514; 799 P2d 855 (1990); State v Clark, 234 Mont 222 ; 762 P2d 853 (1988); Superior Court, supra; Anderson v State, 866 SW2d 685 (Tex App, 1993); People v Buening, 229 Ill App 3d 538; 170 Ill Dec 542; 592 NE2d 1222 (1992); State v Armstrong, 561 So 2d 883 (La App, 1990).

1996E.g., State v Garrett, 119 Idaho 878 ; 811 P2d 488 (1991); State ex rel Hamilton v City Court of Mesa, 165 Ariz 514; 799 P2d 855 (1990); State v Clark, 234 Mont 222 ; 762 P2d 853 (1988); Superior Court, supra; Anderson v State, 866 SW2d 685 (Tex App, 1993); People v Buening, 229 Ill App 3d 538; 170 Ill Dec 542; 592 NE2d 1222 (1992); State v Armstrong, 561 So 2d 883 (La App, 1990).

1982The foundation of this privilege was said by Justice Wightman in the case last cited, to be the superior benefit of the publicity of judicial proceedings which must counterbalance the injuries to individuals which at times may be great.” See, also, Bowerman v Detroit Free Press, 287 Mich 443, 446 ; 283 NW 642 (1939); Hayes v Booth *708 Newspapers, Inc, 97 Mich App 758, 774 ; 295 NW2d 858 (1980).

1982The foundation of this privilege was said by Justice Wightman in the case last cited, to be the superior benefit of the publicity of judicial proceedings which must counterbalance the injuries to individuals which at times may be great.” See, also, Bowerman v Detroit Free Press, 287 Mich 443, 446 ; 283 NW 642 (1939); Hayes v Booth *708 Newspapers, Inc, 97 Mich App 758, 774 ; 295 NW2d 858 (1980).

1982The foundation of this privilege was said by Justice Wightman in the case last cited, to be the superior benefit of the publicity of judicial proceedings which must counterbalance the injuries to individuals which at times may be great.” See, also, Bowerman v Detroit Free Press, 287 Mich 443, 446 ; 283 NW 642 (1939); Hayes v Booth *708 Newspapers, Inc, 97 Mich App 758, 774 ; 295 NW2d 858 (1980).

1982The foundation of this privilege was said by Justice Wightman in the case last cited, to be the superior benefit of the publicity of judicial proceedings which must counterbalance the injuries to individuals which at times may be great.” See, also, Bowerman v Detroit Free Press, 287 Mich 443, 446 ; 283 NW 642 (1939); Hayes v Booth *708 Newspapers, Inc, 97 Mich App 758, 774 ; 295 NW2d 858 (1980).

1979It was expressed by Judge Cardozo in People v Tomlins, 213 NY 240, 243-244 ; 107 NE 496 ; Ann Cas 1916c, 916 (1914), and quoted in People v Lenkevich, 394 Mich 117, 121-122 ; 229 NW2d 298 (1975): "It is not now, and never has been the law that a *46 man assailed in his own dwelling, is bound to retreat.

1979It was expressed by Judge Cardozo in People v Tomlins, 213 NY 240, 243-244 ; 107 NE 496 ; Ann Cas 1916c, 916 (1914), and quoted in People v Lenkevich, 394 Mich 117, 121-122 ; 229 NW2d 298 (1975): "It is not now, and never has been the law that a *46 man assailed in his own dwelling, is bound to retreat.

1979It was expressed by Judge Cardozo in People v Tomlins, 213 NY 240, 243-244 ; 107 NE 496 ; Ann Cas 1916c, 916 (1914), and quoted in People v Lenkevich, 394 Mich 117, 121-122 ; 229 NW2d 298 (1975): "It is not now, and never has been the law that a *46 man assailed in his own dwelling, is bound to retreat.

1979It was expressed by Judge Cardozo in People v Tomlins, 213 NY 240, 243-244 ; 107 NE 496 ; Ann Cas 1916c, 916 (1914), and quoted in People v Lenkevich, 394 Mich 117, 121-122 ; 229 NW2d 298 (1975): "It is not now, and never has been the law that a *46 man assailed in his own dwelling, is bound to retreat.

1976The foundation of this rule of construction was explained in Jones v Meehan, 175 US 1, 10-11 ; 20 S Ct 1 ; 44 L Ed 49 (1899), as follows: "In construing any treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe, it must always * * * be borne in mind that the negotiations for the treaty are conducted, on the part of the United States, an enlightened and powerful nation, by representatives skilled in diplomacy, masters of a written language, understanding the modes and forms of creating the various technical estates known to their law, and assisted by an interpreter employed by themselves; that t

1976The foundation of this rule of construction was explained in Jones v Meehan, 175 US 1, 10-11 ; 20 S Ct 1 ; 44 L Ed 49 (1899), as follows: "In construing any treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe, it must always * * * be borne in mind that the negotiations for the treaty are conducted, on the part of the United States, an enlightened and powerful nation, by representatives skilled in diplomacy, masters of a written language, understanding the modes and forms of creating the various technical estates known to their law, and assisted by an interpreter employed by themselves; that t

1976The foundation of this rule of construction was explained in Jones v Meehan, 175 US 1, 10-11 ; 20 S Ct 1 ; 44 L Ed 49 (1899), as follows: "In construing any treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe, it must always * * * be borne in mind that the negotiations for the treaty are conducted, on the part of the United States, an enlightened and powerful nation, by representatives skilled in diplomacy, masters of a written language, understanding the modes and forms of creating the various technical estates known to their law, and assisted by an interpreter employed by themselves; that t

1976The foundation of this rule of construction was explained in Jones v Meehan, 175 US 1, 10-11 ; 20 S Ct 1 ; 44 L Ed 49 (1899), as follows: "In construing any treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe, it must always * * * be borne in mind that the negotiations for the treaty are conducted, on the part of the United States, an enlightened and powerful nation, by representatives skilled in diplomacy, masters of a written language, understanding the modes and forms of creating the various technical estates known to their law, and assisted by an interpreter employed by themselves; that t

1976The foundation of this rule of construction was explained in Jones v Meehan, 175 US 1, 10-11 ; 20 S Ct 1 ; 44 L Ed 49 (1899), as follows: "In construing any treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe, it must always * * * be borne in mind that the negotiations for the treaty are conducted, on the part of the United States, an enlightened and powerful nation, by representatives skilled in diplomacy, masters of a written language, understanding the modes and forms of creating the various technical estates known to their law, and assisted by an interpreter employed by themselves; that t

1976The foundation of this rule of construction was explained in Jones v Meehan, 175 US 1, 10-11 ; 20 S Ct 1 ; 44 L Ed 49 (1899), as follows: "In construing any treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe, it must always * * * be borne in mind that the negotiations for the treaty are conducted, on the part of the United States, an enlightened and powerful nation, by representatives skilled in diplomacy, masters of a written language, understanding the modes and forms of creating the various technical estates known to their law, and assisted by an interpreter employed by themselves; that t

1976The foundation of this rule of construction was explained in Jones v Meehan, 175 US 1, 10-11 ; 20 S Ct 1 ; 44 L Ed 49 (1899), as follows: "In construing any treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe, it must always * * * be borne in mind that the negotiations for the treaty are conducted, on the part of the United States, an enlightened and powerful nation, by representatives skilled in diplomacy, masters of a written language, understanding the modes and forms of creating the various technical estates known to their law, and assisted by an interpreter employed by themselves; that t

1976The foundation of this rule of construction was explained in Jones v Meehan, 175 US 1, 10-11 ; 20 S Ct 1 ; 44 L Ed 49 (1899), as follows: "In construing any treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe, it must always * * * be borne in mind that the negotiations for the treaty are conducted, on the part of the United States, an enlightened and powerful nation, by representatives skilled in diplomacy, masters of a written language, understanding the modes and forms of creating the various technical estates known to their law, and assisted by an interpreter employed by themselves; that t

1952Instead Connor through its attorneys when the State on October 15, 1948, sent its warrant for the amount found due Connor for costs for witnesses and experts, in accordance with our opinion in Department of Conservation v. Connor, 321 Mich 648 , replied in a letter addressed to the attorney general: “We cannot accept this check in full settlement of the costs and will hold it subject to your order until the question of the liability of the State for interest is decided by the Court.” We believe the case is ruled by Marion v. City of Detroit, supra, when we held (syllabus): “Where a demand is n

1952Instead Connor through its attorneys when the State on October 15, 1948, sent its warrant for the amount found due Connor for costs for witnesses and experts, in accordance with our opinion in Department of Conservation v. Connor, 321 Mich 648 , replied in a letter addressed to the attorney general: “We cannot accept this check in full settlement of the costs and will hold it subject to your order until the question of the liability of the State for interest is decided by the Court.” We believe the case is ruled by Marion v. City of Detroit, supra, when we held (syllabus): “Where a demand is n

1919Co. v. Babcock, 204 U. S. 585 (27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326), citing as the foundation of this principle the opinion of our Supreme Court in Newport Mining Co. v. City of Ironwood, 185 Mich. 685 .

1911This is generally not conceded in the judicial rulings; but it cannot be escaped, if regard is had to the foundation of the privilege.” Among the cases cited by the author as against the principle laid down in the text is Dotton v. Albion Common Council, 57 Mich. 575 ( 24 N. W. 786 ), where Mr. Justice Cooley said: “ The defense undertook to show that the plaintiff, instead of being healthy before, was afflicted with chronic ailments, and for this purpose they called two physicians who testified that they attended upon her professionally, and were able to tell whether her constitutional health

1911This is generally not conceded in the judicial rulings; but it cannot be escaped, if regard is had to the foundation of the privilege.” Among the cases cited by the author as against the principle laid down in the text is Dotton v. Albion Common Council, 57 Mich. 575 ( 24 N. W. 786 ), where Mr. Justice Cooley said: “ The defense undertook to show that the plaintiff, instead of being healthy before, was afflicted with chronic ailments, and for this purpose they called two physicians who testified that they attended upon her professionally, and were able to tell whether her constitutional health

1897See, also, Gilbert v. Vanderpool, 15 Johns. 242 ; Van Alstyne v. Dearborn, 2 Wend. 586 ; Hurst’s Case, 4 Dall. 387 ; Lyell v. Goodwin, 4 McLean, 39 .

1897See, also, Gilbert v. Vanderpool, 15 Johns. 242 ; Van Alstyne v. Dearborn, 2 Wend. 586 ; Hurst’s Case, 4 Dall. 387 ; Lyell v. Goodwin, 4 McLean, 39 .

1831Matters of fact showing a want of jurisdiction of the person &c, need not be alleged before a justice or other limited jurisdiction in order to lay a foundation for error, but may be assigned on certiorari, as Infancy, coverture, exemption from military duty &c. 15 Johns R. 403. 3 Cranch 331 . 2 Wils. 384. 5.