outset analysis in Michigan

2014See MCL 750.316(1)(b).39 These choices by the Legislature must be afforded great weight in light of the fact that Lockett, one of the capital-punishment cases relied on by the United States Supreme Court in forming the rule in Miller, specifically instructs: That States have authority to make aiders and abettors equally responsible, as a matter of law, with principals, or to enact felony-murder statutes is beyond constitutional challenge. [Lockett, 438 US at 602 .] Davis attempts to overcome this constitutional pronouncement in light of his own proposed categorical rule mandating a lesser maxi

2014See MCL 750.316(1)(b).39 These choices by the Legislature must be afforded great weight in light of the fact that Lockett, one of the capital-punishment cases relied on by the United States Supreme Court in forming the rule in Miller, specifically instructs: That States have authority to make aiders and abettors equally responsible, as a matter of law, with principals, or to enact felony-murder statutes is beyond constitutional challenge. [Lockett, 438 US at 602 .] Davis attempts to overcome this constitutional pronouncement in light of his own proposed categorical rule mandating a lesser maxi

1939This latter class of litigation, in the main, applies to fraternal insurance organizations, but there are other cases as was stated in Leviness v. Consolidated Gas, Electric Light & Power Co., 114 Md. 559 ( 80 Atl. 304 , Ann.

1939This latter class of litigation, in the main, applies to fraternal insurance organizations, but there are other cases as was stated in Leviness v. Consolidated Gas, Electric Light & Power Co., 114 Md. 559 ( 80 Atl. 304 , Ann.

2023See also id. at 656 n 42 (stating that under New York v Hill, 528 US 110, 114 ; 120 S Ct 659 ; 145 L Ed 2d 560 (2000), violation of the right to counsel is a 10 structural error that “fall[s] outside the ordinary issue preservation requirements because [it] require[s] a personal waiver”); Vaughn, 491 Mich at 656 n 44 (stating that under Hill the right to counsel “exist[s] outside our ordinary preservation requirements”).

2018In People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392 ; 870 NW2d 502 (2015), the Supreme Court held that the guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, but noted their continuing importance stating: 1 The sentencing judge did not try the case, but there was no objection to him imposing sentence. -1- Sentencing courts must, however, continue to consult the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence.

2018In People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392 ; 870 NW2d 502 (2015), the Supreme Court held that the guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, but noted their continuing importance stating: 1 The sentencing judge did not try the case, but there was no objection to him imposing sentence. -1- Sentencing courts must, however, continue to consult the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence.

2016Soumis, 218 Mich App at 32 .

2009Brenner v Marathon Oil Co, 222 Mich App 128, 133 ; 565 NW2d 1 (1997).

2009Brenner v Marathon Oil Co, 222 Mich App 128, 133 ; 565 NW2d 1 (1997).

2008Detroit Leasing Co v Detroit, 269 Mich App 233, 237-238 ; 713 NW2d 269 (2005).

2008Detroit Leasing Co v Detroit, 269 Mich App 233, 237-238 ; 713 NW2d 269 (2005).

2007MEC/PIRGIM’S APPEAL IN DOCKET NO. 264131 We note at the outset of our analysis of MEC’s and PIRGIM’s appeal that these same plaintiffs challenged the PSC’s identical determination regarding spent nuclear fuel (SNF) issues in In re Application of Indiana Michigan Power Co, 275 Mich App 369 ; 738 NW2d *241 289 (2007).

2000Marshall, supra at 95 .

1987People v Watts, 145 Mich App 760, 761 ; 378 NW2d 787 (1985), lv den 424 Mich 889 (1986).

1987People v Watts, 145 Mich App 760, 761 ; 378 NW2d 787 (1985), lv den 424 Mich 889 (1986).

1978Nevertheless it is a part of the case for the government; the fact which it supports must necessarily be established before any conviction can be had; and, when the jury come to consider the whole case upon the evidence delivered to them, they must do so upon the basis that on each and every portion of it they are to be reasonably satisfied before they are at liberty to find the defendant guilty.” This holding was reiterated in People v Eggleston, 186 Mich 510, 514 ; 152 NW 944 (1915), wherein the Court wrote: "While it is true that at the outset there is a presumption of sanity, as soon as ev

1978Nevertheless it is a part of the case for the government; the fact which it supports must necessarily be established before any conviction can be had; and, when the jury come to consider the whole case upon the evidence delivered to them, they must do so upon the basis that on each and every portion of it they are to be reasonably satisfied before they are at liberty to find the defendant guilty.” This holding was reiterated in People v Eggleston, 186 Mich 510, 514 ; 152 NW 944 (1915), wherein the Court wrote: "While it is true that at the outset there is a presumption of sanity, as soon as ev

1978Nevertheless it is a part of the case for the government; the fact which it supports must necessarily be established before any conviction can be had; and, when the jury come to consider the whole case upon the evidence delivered to them, they must do so upon the basis that on each and every portion of it they are to be reasonably satisfied before they are at liberty to find the defendant guilty.” This holding was reiterated in People v Eggleston, 186 Mich 510, 514 ; 152 NW 944 (1915), wherein the Court wrote: "While it is true that at the outset there is a presumption of sanity, as soon as ev

1978Nevertheless it is a part of the case for the government; the fact which it supports must necessarily be established before any conviction can be had; and, when the jury come to consider the whole case upon the evidence delivered to them, they must do so upon the basis that on each and every portion of it they are to be reasonably satisfied before they are at liberty to find the defendant guilty.” This holding was reiterated in People v Eggleston, 186 Mich 510, 514 ; 152 NW 944 (1915), wherein the Court wrote: "While it is true that at the outset there is a presumption of sanity, as soon as ev

1978Nevertheless it is a part of the case for the government; the fact which it supports must necessarily be established before any conviction can be had; and, when the jury come to consider the whole case upon the evidence delivered to them, they must do so upon the basis that on each and every portion of it they are to be reasonably satisfied before they are at liberty to find the defendant guilty.” This holding was reiterated in People v Eggleston, 186 Mich 510, 514 ; 152 NW 944 (1915), wherein the Court wrote: "While it is true that at the outset there is a presumption of sanity, as soon as ev

1978Nevertheless it is a part of the case for the government; the fact which it supports must necessarily be established before any conviction can be had; and, when the jury come to consider the whole case upon the evidence delivered to them, they must do so upon the basis that on each and every portion of it they are to be reasonably satisfied before they are at liberty to find the defendant guilty.” This holding was reiterated in People v Eggleston, 186 Mich 510, 514 ; 152 NW 944 (1915), wherein the Court wrote: "While it is true that at the outset there is a presumption of sanity, as soon as ev

1978Nevertheless it is a part of the case for the government; the fact which it supports must necessarily be established before any conviction can be had; and, when the jury come to consider the whole case upon the evidence delivered to them, they must do so upon the basis that on each and every portion of it they are to be reasonably satisfied before they are at liberty to find the defendant guilty.” This holding was reiterated in People v Eggleston, 186 Mich 510, 514 ; 152 NW 944 (1915), wherein the Court wrote: "While it is true that at the outset there is a presumption of sanity, as soon as ev

1978Nevertheless it is a part of the case for the government; the fact which it supports must necessarily be established before any conviction can be had; and, when the jury come to consider the whole case upon the evidence delivered to them, they must do so upon the basis that on each and every portion of it they are to be reasonably satisfied before they are at liberty to find the defendant guilty.” This holding was reiterated in People v Eggleston, 186 Mich 510, 514 ; 152 NW 944 (1915), wherein the Court wrote: "While it is true that at the outset there is a presumption of sanity, as soon as ev

1977In Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284, 295 ; 93 S Ct 1038 ; 35 L Ed 2d 297 (1973), Mr. Justice Blackmun, speaking for the Supreme Court, wrote: "The right of cross-examination is more than a desirable rule of trial procedure.

1977In Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284, 295 ; 93 S Ct 1038 ; 35 L Ed 2d 297 (1973), Mr. Justice Blackmun, speaking for the Supreme Court, wrote: "The right of cross-examination is more than a desirable rule of trial procedure.

1915People v. Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9 ( 97 Am.