undisputed principle in Michigan

2025Michigan courts “will not unnecessarily decide constitutional issues, People v Riley, 465 Mich 442, 447 ; 636 NW2d 514 (2001), and it is an undisputed principle of judicial review that questions of constitutionality should not be decided if the case may be disposed of on other grounds.

2025Michigan courts “will not unnecessarily decide constitutional issues, People v Riley, 465 Mich 442, 447 ; 636 NW2d 514 (2001), and it is an undisputed principle of judicial review that questions of constitutionality should not be decided if the case may be disposed of on other grounds.

2025MacLean v Michigan State Bd of Control for Vocational Ed, 294 Mich 45, 50 ; 292 NW 662 (1940).

2025MacLean v Michigan State Bd of Control for Vocational Ed, 294 Mich 45, 50 ; 292 NW 662 (1940).

2025See J & J Constr, 468 Mich at 734 (“[I]t is an undisputed principle of judicial review that questions of constitutionality should not be decided if the case may be disposed of on other grounds.”); Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Mich Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 234 ; 507 NW2d 422 (1993) (“[T]here exists a general presumption by this Court that we will not reach constitutional 10 precisely what the lead opinion does by opining that the search warrant in this case was invalid under the Fourth Amendment.

2025See J & J Constr, 468 Mich at 734 (“[I]t is an undisputed principle of judicial review that questions of constitutionality should not be decided if the case may be disposed of on other grounds.”); Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Mich Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 234 ; 507 NW2d 422 (1993) (“[T]here exists a general presumption by this Court that we will not reach constitutional 10 precisely what the lead opinion does by opining that the search warrant in this case was invalid under the Fourth Amendment.

2024People v Hawkins, 245 Mich App 439, 457 ; 628 NW2d 105 (2001). “[I]t is an undisputed principle of judicial review that questions of constitutionality should not be decided if the case may be disposed of on other grounds.” J & J Constr Co v Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen, Local 1, 468 Mich 722, 734 ; 664 NW2d 728 (2003).

2024People v Hawkins, 245 Mich App 439, 457 ; 628 NW2d 105 (2001). “[I]t is an undisputed principle of judicial review that questions of constitutionality should not be decided if the case may be disposed of on other grounds.” J & J Constr Co v Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen, Local 1, 468 Mich 722, 734 ; 664 NW2d 728 (2003).

2020Our Supreme Court has broken this court rule down into five separate elements: (1) personal jurisdiction over defendants was necessary and acquired, (2) defendants in fact had no knowledge of the action pending against them, (3) defendants entered an appearance within one year after the final judgment, (4) defendants show a reason justifying relief from the judgment, and (5) granting defendants relief from the judgment will not prejudice innocent third persons. [Lawrence, 489 Mich at 273 .] -3- The first element is based on the undisputed rule of law that “[a] court ‘cannot adjudicate [an in p

2020Our Supreme Court has broken this court rule down into five separate elements: (1) personal jurisdiction over defendants was necessary and acquired, (2) defendants in fact had no knowledge of the action pending against them, (3) defendants entered an appearance within one year after the final judgment, (4) defendants show a reason justifying relief from the judgment, and (5) granting defendants relief from the judgment will not prejudice innocent third persons. [Lawrence, 489 Mich at 273 .] -3- The first element is based on the undisputed rule of law that “[a] court ‘cannot adjudicate [an in p

2014Based on this undisputed violation of the trial court’s July 18, 2012 order, we affirm the trial court’s decision to impose liability on Dan’s Excavating for damaging the property, albeit under alternative reasoning.2 See Lavey v Mills, 248 Mich App 244, 250 ; 639 NW2d 261 (2001) (citation and quotation omitted) (“[w]hen this Court concludes 2 Although Dan’s Excavating’s damage to the stone surface of the subject property falls within the ambit of its indemnity clause with Williams & Williams—wherein it agreed to hold Williams & Williams harmless for “our operations on said property,”—we need

2014Based on this undisputed violation of the trial court’s July 18, 2012 order, we affirm the trial court’s decision to impose liability on Dan’s Excavating for damaging the property, albeit under alternative reasoning.2 See Lavey v Mills, 248 Mich App 244, 250 ; 639 NW2d 261 (2001) (citation and quotation omitted) (“[w]hen this Court concludes 2 Although Dan’s Excavating’s damage to the stone surface of the subject property falls within the ambit of its indemnity clause with Williams & Williams—wherein it agreed to hold Williams & Williams harmless for “our operations on said property,”—we need

2010In People v. Peterson, 450 Mich. 349, 352 , 537 N.W.2d 857 (1995), this Court held that "an expert may not vouch for the veracity of a victim." Yet, the trial court allowed two expert witnesses to testify that the alleged sexual abuse in this case had occurred and thus that the victims were telling the truth in their allegations.

2010In People v. Peterson, 450 Mich. 349, 352 , 537 N.W.2d 857 (1995), this Court held that "an expert may not vouch for the veracity of a victim." Yet, the trial court allowed two expert witnesses to testify that the alleged sexual abuse in this case had occurred and thus that the victims were telling the truth in their allegations.

2005This Court adopted the Neder harmless error standard in Mass, supra at 640 n 29.

2005Co. v. Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen, Local 1, 468 Mich. 722, 734 , 664 N.W.2d 728 (2003). [5] This Court adopted the Neder harmless error standard in Mass, supra at 640 n. 29, 628 N.W.2d 540 . [6] We recognize that the prosecutor emphasized the erroneously admitted guilty plea transcript in his argument, but this does not alter our analysis. [7] The Court of Appeals correctly found that the corrections officers' testimony about Butters's nontestimonial statements to his visitors was properly admitted under MRE 804(b)(3).

2004NOTES [1] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [2] The prosecutor elicited similar testimony from Officers Hillman and Siladke, both of whom assisted in the stop of defendant's vehicle. [3] We have no occasion to consider the decision reached by the Court of Appeals in Schollaert in light of our disposition of this case under Carines . [4] Because we conclude that the prosecutor's questions did not affect the outcome of the lower court proceedings, it is unnecessary to determine if the prosecutor's questions were permissible and "it is an undisputed princip

2004NOTES [1] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [2] The prosecutor elicited similar testimony from Officers Hillman and Siladke, both of whom assisted in the stop of defendant's vehicle. [3] We have no occasion to consider the decision reached by the Court of Appeals in Schollaert in light of our disposition of this case under Carines . [4] Because we conclude that the prosecutor's questions did not affect the outcome of the lower court proceedings, it is unnecessary to determine if the prosecutor's questions were permissible and "it is an undisputed princip