102 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 49 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. Carinesgreen2 sentences2017A. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant failed to raise this issue in the trial court, it is unpreserved, see People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 617 ; 806 NW2d 371 (2011), and reviewed for plain error affecting his substantial rights, People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 752-753, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). 2017A. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant failed to raise this issue in the trial court, it is unpreserved, see People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 617 ; 806 NW2d 371 (2011), and reviewed for plain error affecting his substantial rights, People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 752-753, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). | 3 | 14 |
In re TKgreen2 sentences2026See In re TK, 306 Mich App 698, 703 ; 859 NW2d 208 (2014). 2026See In re TK, 306 Mich App 698, 703 ; 859 NW2d 208 (2014). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Ackah-Essiengreen2 sentences2022A. ISSUE PRESERVATION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant did not argue in the trial court that his multiple convictions violated double-jeopardy protections, this issue is unpreserved on appeal.2 People v Ackah-Essien, 311 Mich App 13, 30 ; 874 NW2d 172 (2015) (“To preserve appellate review of a double jeopardy violation, a defendant must object at the trial court level.”). 2022A. ISSUE PRESERVATION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant did not argue in the trial court that his multiple convictions violated double-jeopardy protections, this issue is unpreserved on appeal.2 People v Ackah-Essien, 311 Mich App 13, 30 ; 874 NW2d 172 (2015) (“To preserve appellate review of a double jeopardy violation, a defendant must object at the trial court level.”). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Gainesgreen2 sentences2020See Gaines, 306 Mich App at 306 . 2015People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488 , 504- 505; 803 NW2d 200 (2011); see also People v Gaines, 306 Mich App 289, 310-311 ; 856 NW2d 222 (2014). | 2 | 2 |
Department of Transportation v. Tomkinsgreen2 sentences2015See Dep’t of Transp v Tomkins, 481 Mich 184, 190 ; 749 NW2d 716 (2008). 6 In my view, the constitutionality of the 1999 amendment turns on an examination of Const 1963, art 1, § 2 and the directive to the Legislature contained therein. 2015See Dep’t of Transp v Tomkins, 481 Mich 184, 190 ; 749 NW2d 716 (2008). 6 In my view, the constitutionality of the 1999 amendment turns on an examination of Const 1963, art 1, § 2 and the directive to the Legislature contained therein. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Sabingreen2 sentences2026See People v Abcumby-Blair, 335 Mich App 210 , 227; 966 NW2d 437 (2020); People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 658 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000). 2026See People v Abcumby-Blair, 335 Mich App 210 , 227; 966 NW2d 437 (2020); People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 658 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000). | 1 | 7 |
People v. Metamora Water Service, Incgreen2 sentences2017STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant Waters’ failed to preserve this issue, see Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App at 382 ; People v Gentner, Inc, 262 Mich App 363, 368 ; 686 NW2d 752 (2004), our review is limited to plain error affecting his substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 762-765 . 14 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). 15 Defendant Waters appears to briefly suggest in his brief on appeal that the district court erred when it bound him over for trial based on Detective Fraser’s testimony, and when it failed to “address” the purported custodial i 2017STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant Waters’ failed to preserve this issue, see Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App at 382 ; People v Gentner, Inc, 262 Mich App 363, 368 ; 686 NW2d 752 (2004), our review is limited to plain error affecting his substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 762-765 . 14 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). 15 Defendant Waters appears to briefly suggest in his brief on appeal that the district court erred when it bound him over for trial based on Detective Fraser’s testimony, and when it failed to “address” the purported custodial i | 1 | 4 |
People v. Heftgreen2 sentences2025See People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69, 78 ; 829 NW2d 266 (2012). 2025See People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69, 78 ; 829 NW2d 266 (2012). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2026See People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465, 475 ; 802 NW2d 627 (2010). 2024Bennett, 290 Mich App at 475 . -7- B. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Newtongreen2 sentences2026People v Newton, 257 Mich App 61, 68 ; 665 NW2d 504 (2003). 2026People v Newton, 257 Mich App 61, 68 ; 665 NW2d 504 (2003). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Ginthergreen2 sentences2024A. PRESERVATION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel may be preserved by moving in “the trial court for a new trial or a Ginther hearing,” People v Jackson, 313 Mich App 409, 431 ; 884 NW2d 297 (2015), citing People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 442-443 , 212 NW2d 922 (1973), or “by filing in this Court a motion for remand to the trial court for a Ginther hearing.” People v Abcumby- Blair, 335 Mich App 210 , 227; 966 NW2d 437 (2020) (footnote omitted). 2024A. PRESERVATION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel may be preserved by moving in “the trial court for a new trial or a Ginther hearing,” People v Jackson, 313 Mich App 409, 431 ; 884 NW2d 297 (2015), citing People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 442-443 , 212 NW2d 922 (1973), or “by filing in this Court a motion for remand to the trial court for a Ginther hearing.” People v Abcumby- Blair, 335 Mich App 210 , 227; 966 NW2d 437 (2020) (footnote omitted). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2021See People v Jackson, 292 Mich App 583, 597 ; 808 NW2d 541 (2011). 2021See People v Jackson, 292 Mich App 583, 597 ; 808 NW2d 541 (2011). | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Dardengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Walters v. Nadellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People of Michigan v. Eddie Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Reynoldsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lockettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| 2000 Baum Family Trust v. Babelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Meshellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Boscagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| New York Times Co. v. Sullivangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Peterman v. Department of Natural Resources
green
2 sentences2023Peterman v State Dep’t of Natural Resources, 446 Mich 177, 183 ; 521 NW2d 499 (1994). 2023Peterman v State Dep’t of Natural Resources, 446 Mich 177, 183 ; 521 NW2d 499 (1994). | 6 | 2021–2023 |
People v. McCray
green
2 sentences2017People v McCray, 245 Mich App 631, 638 ; 630 NW2d 633 (2001). 2017People v McCray, 245 Mich App 631, 638 ; 630 NW2d 633 (2001). | 5 | 2015–2017 |
People v. Jackson (On Reconsideration)
green
2 sentences2024A. PRESERVATION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel may be preserved by moving in “the trial court for a new trial or a Ginther hearing,” People v Jackson, 313 Mich App 409, 431 ; 884 NW2d 297 (2015), citing People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 442-443 , 212 NW2d 922 (1973), or “by filing in this Court a motion for remand to the trial court for a Ginther hearing.” People v Abcumby- Blair, 335 Mich App 210 , 227; 966 NW2d 437 (2020) (footnote omitted). 2024A. PRESERVATION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel may be preserved by moving in “the trial court for a new trial or a Ginther hearing,” People v Jackson, 313 Mich App 409, 431 ; 884 NW2d 297 (2015), citing People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 442-443 , 212 NW2d 922 (1973), or “by filing in this Court a motion for remand to the trial court for a Ginther hearing.” People v Abcumby- Blair, 335 Mich App 210 , 227; 966 NW2d 437 (2020) (footnote omitted). | 3 | 2020–2024 |
People v. McGee
green
2 sentences2022Although “a double jeopardy issue presents a significant constitutional question that will be considered on appeal regardless of whether the defendant raised it before the trial court,” this Court nevertheless reviews “an unpreserved claim that a defendant’s double jeopardy rights have been violated for plain error that affected the defendant’s substantial rights . . . .” People v McGee, 280 Mich App 680, 682 ; 761 NW2d 743 (2008). 2022Although “a double jeopardy issue presents a significant constitutional question that will be considered on appeal regardless of whether the defendant raised it before the trial court,” this Court nevertheless reviews “an unpreserved claim that a defendant’s double jeopardy rights have been violated for plain error that affected the defendant’s substantial rights . . . .” People v McGee, 280 Mich App 680, 682 ; 761 NW2d 743 (2008). | 3 | 2020–2022 |
People v. LeBlanc
green
2 sentences2021People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575, 579 ; 640 NW2d 246 (2002). 2021People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575, 579 ; 640 NW2d 246 (2002). | 3 | 2016–2021 |
Maiden v. Rozwood
green
2 sentences2026STANDARD OF REVIEW The challenge to Zezula’s MISS DIG Act claim was considered under MCR 2.116(C)(7), which allows the trial court to grant summary disposition where “dismissal of the action . . . is appropriate because of . . . immunity granted by law[.]” “A party may support a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(7) by affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documentary evidence.” Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 119 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 2026STANDARD OF REVIEW The challenge to Zezula’s MISS DIG Act claim was considered under MCR 2.116(C)(7), which allows the trial court to grant summary disposition where “dismissal of the action . . . is appropriate because of . . . immunity granted by law[.]” “A party may support a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(7) by affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documentary evidence.” Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 119 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). | 2 | 2023–2026 |
People v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2021A. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant failed to raise his ineffective-assistance claim in the trial court in connection with a motion for a new trial or to request an evidentiary hearing, “our review is limited to the facts on the record.” People v Wilson, 242 Mich App 350, 352 ; 619 NW2d 413 (2000). 2021A. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant failed to raise his ineffective-assistance claim in the trial court in connection with a motion for a new trial or to request an evidentiary hearing, “our review is limited to the facts on the record.” People v Wilson, 242 Mich App 350, 352 ; 619 NW2d 413 (2000). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
in Re Application of Consumers Energy to Increase Electric Rates
green
2 sentences2018In re Application of Consumers Energy Co to Increase Rates (On Remand, 316 Mich App 231, 236 ; 891 NW2d 871 (2016). 2018In re Application of Consumers Energy Co to Increase Rates (On Remand, 316 Mich App 231, 236 ; 891 NW2d 871 (2016). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Young v. Independent Bank
green
2 sentences2018Young v Indep Bank, 294 Mich App 141, 143 ; 818 NW2d 406 (2011). 2018Young v Indep Bank, 294 Mich App 141, 143 ; 818 NW2d 406 (2011). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Konopka (On Remand)
green
2 sentences2018People v Konopka (On Remand), 309 Mich App 345, 356 ; 869 NW2d 651 (2015). 2018People v Konopka (On Remand), 309 Mich App 345, 356 ; 869 NW2d 651 (2015). | 2 | 2016–2018 |
People v. Strickland
green
2 sentences2017A. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant also failed to preserve his double jeopardy challenge, see People v Strickland, 293 Mich App 393, 401 ; 810 NW2d 660 (2011), our review of this unpreserved constitutional challenge is limited to plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 752-753, 763-764 . 2017A. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant also failed to preserve his double jeopardy challenge, see People v Strickland, 293 Mich App 393, 401 ; 810 NW2d 660 (2011), our review of this unpreserved constitutional challenge is limited to plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 752-753, 763-764 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Cameron
green
2 sentences2017A. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant failed to raise this issue in the trial court, it is unpreserved, see People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 617 ; 806 NW2d 371 (2011), and reviewed for plain error affecting his substantial rights, People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 752-753, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). 2017A. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant failed to raise this issue in the trial court, it is unpreserved, see People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 617 ; 806 NW2d 371 (2011), and reviewed for plain error affecting his substantial rights, People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 752-753, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Gentner, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2017STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant Waters’ failed to preserve this issue, see Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App at 382 ; People v Gentner, Inc, 262 Mich App 363, 368 ; 686 NW2d 752 (2004), our review is limited to plain error affecting his substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 762-765 . 14 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). 15 Defendant Waters appears to briefly suggest in his brief on appeal that the district court erred when it bound him over for trial based on Detective Fraser’s testimony, and when it failed to “address” the purported custodial i 2017STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant Waters’ failed to preserve this issue, see Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App at 382 ; People v Gentner, Inc, 262 Mich App 363, 368 ; 686 NW2d 752 (2004), our review is limited to plain error affecting his substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 762-765 . 14 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). 15 Defendant Waters appears to briefly suggest in his brief on appeal that the district court erred when it bound him over for trial based on Detective Fraser’s testimony, and when it failed to “address” the purported custodial i | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2017STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant Waters’ failed to preserve this issue, see Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App at 382 ; People v Gentner, Inc, 262 Mich App 363, 368 ; 686 NW2d 752 (2004), our review is limited to plain error affecting his substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 762-765 . 14 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). 15 Defendant Waters appears to briefly suggest in his brief on appeal that the district court erred when it bound him over for trial based on Detective Fraser’s testimony, and when it failed to “address” the purported custodial i 2017STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant Waters’ failed to preserve this issue, see Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App at 382 ; People v Gentner, Inc, 262 Mich App 363, 368 ; 686 NW2d 752 (2004), our review is limited to plain error affecting his substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 762-765 . 14 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). 15 Defendant Waters appears to briefly suggest in his brief on appeal that the district court erred when it bound him over for trial based on Detective Fraser’s testimony, and when it failed to “address” the purported custodial i | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Gentner, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant Waters’ failed to preserve this issue, see Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App at 382 ; People v Gentner, Inc, 262 Mich App 363, 368 ; 686 NW2d 752 (2004), our review is limited to plain error affecting his substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 762-765 . 14 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). 15 Defendant Waters appears to briefly suggest in his brief on appeal that the district court erred when it bound him over for trial based on Detective Fraser’s testimony, and when it failed to “address” the purported custodial i 2017STANDARD OF REVIEW Because defendant Waters’ failed to preserve this issue, see Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App at 382 ; People v Gentner, Inc, 262 Mich App 363, 368 ; 686 NW2d 752 (2004), our review is limited to plain error affecting his substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 762-765 . 14 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). 15 Defendant Waters appears to briefly suggest in his brief on appeal that the district court erred when it bound him over for trial based on Detective Fraser’s testimony, and when it failed to “address” the purported custodial i | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Petri
green
2 sentences2016People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407, 410 ; 760 NW2d 882 (2008). 2016People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407, 410 ; 760 NW2d 882 (2008). | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Mcna Ins. Co. v. Dep't of Tech.
green
1 sentence2026MCNA Ins Co, 326 Mich App at 743 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| People v. Hanks green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People of Michigan v. Lonnie James Arnold
green
2 sentences2026A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Because defendant failed to raise this issue below, we review it for “plain error affecting substantial rights.” People v Campbell, 316 Mich App 279, 283 ; 894 NW2d 72 (2016), overruled in part on other grounds by People v Arnold, 502 Mich 438 ; 918 NW2d 164 (2018). 2026A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Because defendant failed to raise this issue below, we review it for “plain error affecting substantial rights.” People v Campbell, 316 Mich App 279, 283 ; 894 NW2d 72 (2016), overruled in part on other grounds by People v Arnold, 502 Mich 438 ; 918 NW2d 164 (2018). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| People v. Campbell green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| People v. Danto green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Williams green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Knight green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Wilder green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Clark green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People of Michigan v. Kelvin Willis green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| In Re Utrera green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Cochrane v. Brown green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Bowling green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People of Michigan v. Henry Anderson green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Hines v. Volkswagen of America, Inc green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Petrella green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Tuscany Grove Association v. Peraino green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Connor green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Callon green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Trakhtenberg green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Coutu green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In Re Petition of Atty. Gen. for Investigative Subpoenas green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Musser green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Noble green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.