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.
15 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gainesgreen2 sentences2017Gaines, 306 Mich App at 300 . 2017Gaines, 306 Mich App at 300 . | 2 | 4 |
People v. Paynegreen2 sentences2021Without needing to reach the issue of prejudice, we conclude that defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit. [Id. at 384 (footnote omitted).] We note that, in his appeal to this Court, defendant’s phrasing of the ineffective-assistance claim asked whether counsel was ineffective because, by failing to present expert witnesses, counsel “deprived [defendant] of a substantial defense . . . .” Defendant’s argument included authority from this Court standing for the premise that “[t]he failure to call a witness constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel ‘when it depriv 2021Without needing to reach the issue of prejudice, we conclude that defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit. [Id. at 384 (footnote omitted).] We note that, in his appeal to this Court, defendant’s phrasing of the ineffective-assistance claim asked whether counsel was ineffective because, by failing to present expert witnesses, counsel “deprived [defendant] of a substantial defense . . . .” Defendant’s argument included authority from this Court standing for the premise that “[t]he failure to call a witness constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel ‘when it depriv | 1 | 3 |
People v. Trakhtenberggreen2 sentences2020Defense counsel’s performance arguably fell below an objectively reasonable standard in failing to request such an instruction, Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich at 51 , but defendant cannot establish that this error more than likely prejudiced the defense. 2019See Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich at 51 . | 1 | 2 |
Graham v. Connorgreen2 sentences2024See Graham v Connor, 490 US 386, 395-397 ; 109 S Ct 1865 ; 104 L Ed 2d 443 (1989) (holding that an officer’s use of force at an investigatory stop should be analyzed under an objectively-reasonable standard). 2024See Graham v Connor, 490 US 386, 395-397 ; 109 S Ct 1865 ; 104 L Ed 2d 443 (1989) (holding that an officer’s use of force at an investigatory stop should be analyzed under an objectively-reasonable standard). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hoag
green
2 sentences2017Therefore, we hold that defendant has failed to establish the factual predicate for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 59 ; 594 NW2d 57 (1999), and cannot demonstrate that trial counsel’s performance failed to satisfy an objectively reasonable standard. 2017Therefore, we hold that defendant has failed to establish the factual predicate for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 59 ; 594 NW2d 57 (1999), and cannot demonstrate that trial counsel’s performance failed to satisfy an objectively reasonable standard. | 4 | 2015–2017 |
People v. LeBlanc
green
2 sentences2026The Sixth Amendment “does not guarantee infallible counsel,” People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575, 592 ; 640 NW2d 246 (2002), and because defendant fails to show that his counsel’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard, his ineffective assistance of counsel argument fails. 2026The Sixth Amendment “does not guarantee infallible counsel,” People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575, 592 ; 640 NW2d 246 (2002), and because defendant fails to show that his counsel’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard, his ineffective assistance of counsel argument fails. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
United States v. Cronic
green
2 sentences2024Because there is no evidence defense counsel was unable to understand the electronic data of this case, there is no evidence his performance fell below the objectively reasonable standard required, nor is there any evidence of prejudice.4 4 We note that, on appeal, Garcia contends analysis of this claim does not fall under the Strickland test, but instead follows a separate analysis under US v Cronic, 466 US 648 ; 104 S Ct 2039 ; 80 L Ed 2d 657 (1984), which held that there are some “circumstances that are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particu 2024Because there is no evidence defense counsel was unable to understand the electronic data of this case, there is no evidence his performance fell below the objectively reasonable standard required, nor is there any evidence of prejudice.4 4 We note that, on appeal, Garcia contends analysis of this claim does not fall under the Strickland test, but instead follows a separate analysis under US v Cronic, 466 US 648 ; 104 S Ct 2039 ; 80 L Ed 2d 657 (1984), which held that there are some “circumstances that are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particu | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Riley
green
1 sentence2020Id.; Riley, 468 Mich at 140 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
the Meisner Law Group v. Weston Downs Condominium Association
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Unger
green
1 sentence2017Unger, 278 Mich App at 258 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Armstrong
green
1 sentence2017Armstrong, 490 Mich at 290 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.