competing factors in Michigan

1982In People v Crawford, 83 Mich App 35 ; 268 NW2d 275 (1978), this Court construed Jackson, supra, as envisioning a true exercise of discretion by balancing the competing factors involved.

1982In People v Crawford, 83 Mich App 35 ; 268 NW2d 275 (1978), this Court construed Jackson, supra, as envisioning a true exercise of discretion by balancing the competing factors involved.

2018Taylor v Laban, 241 Mich App 449, 458 ; 616 NW2d 229 (2000). -5- Defendant argues that “[t]he [d]istrict [c]ourt erred by denying [defendant’s] motion to dismiss or stay the summary proceedings pending the outcome of the federal action and to otherwise permit her to assert equitable claims and defenses regarding title.”3 She states that “entry of the judgment of possession in this case was improper because [defendant] was litigating the issue of title in another court.” Defendant, however, cites only nonbinding caselaw in support of her argument.4 The unpublished case on which defendant primar

2018Taylor v Laban, 241 Mich App 449, 458 ; 616 NW2d 229 (2000). -5- Defendant argues that “[t]he [d]istrict [c]ourt erred by denying [defendant’s] motion to dismiss or stay the summary proceedings pending the outcome of the federal action and to otherwise permit her to assert equitable claims and defenses regarding title.”3 She states that “entry of the judgment of possession in this case was improper because [defendant] was litigating the issue of title in another court.” Defendant, however, cites only nonbinding caselaw in support of her argument.4 The unpublished case on which defendant primar

1982In People v Crawford, 83 Mich App 35 ; 268 NW2d 275 (1978), this Court construed Jackson, supra, as envisioning a true exercise of discretion by balancing the competing factors involved.

1982The decision to allow impeachment by evidence of prior convictions is within the discretion of the court, People v Jackson, 391 Mich 323 ; 217 NW2d 22 (1974), and the rule envisions a balancing of the competing factors outlined in People v Crawford, 83 Mich App 35 ; 268 NW2d 275 (1978).

2022In Fowler v Doan, 261 Mich App 595, 600 ; 683 NW2d 682 (2004), this Court explained that the MRTA “serves to bar competing claims of title of which plaintiffs had no notice.” There has been no claim that plaintiffs were previously on notice of a competing claim to title.

2022In Fowler v Doan, 261 Mich App 595, 600 ; 683 NW2d 682 (2004), this Court explained that the MRTA “serves to bar competing claims of title of which plaintiffs had no notice.” There has been no claim that plaintiffs were previously on notice of a competing claim to title.

2019See, e.g., Locricchio v Evening News -4- Ass’n, 438 Mich 84, 109-110 ; 476 NW2d 112 (1991) (explaining that there are instances where “the law of the case doctrine must yield to a competing doctrine”); People v Spinks, 206 Mich App 488, 491 ; 522 NW2d 875 (1994) (refusing to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine because there had been an intervening change in the law); People v Phillips, 227 Mich App 28, 34 ; 575 NW2d 784 (1997) (“[W]e decline to apply a doctrine designed for judicial convenience in fairly administering the obligation to do justice so as to work an injustice.”).

2019See, e.g., Locricchio v Evening News -4- Ass’n, 438 Mich 84, 109-110 ; 476 NW2d 112 (1991) (explaining that there are instances where “the law of the case doctrine must yield to a competing doctrine”); People v Spinks, 206 Mich App 488, 491 ; 522 NW2d 875 (1994) (refusing to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine because there had been an intervening change in the law); People v Phillips, 227 Mich App 28, 34 ; 575 NW2d 784 (1997) (“[W]e decline to apply a doctrine designed for judicial convenience in fairly administering the obligation to do justice so as to work an injustice.”).

2009Although quo warranto is most often used to determine competing claims to an office, Lamoreaux v Ellis, 89 Mich 146, 161 ; 50 NW 812 (1891), nonetheless makes clear that an action for quo warranto may be used to oust a current “intruder” from office even without a competing claim.

2009Although quo warranto is most often used to determine competing claims to an office, Lamoreaux v Ellis, 89 Mich 146, 161 ; 50 NW 812 (1891), nonetheless makes clear that an action for quo warranto may be used to oust a current “intruder” from office even without a competing claim.

1991Indeed, in such cases the law of the case doctrine must yield to a competing doctrine: the requirement of independent review of constitutional facts. 14 The determination on summary judgment that the plaintiffs’ complaint stated a cause of action for defamation by implication should not have abrogated the appellate court’s duty to independently review the record to determine whether, in fact, the plaintiffs carried their burden of proof at trial regarding falsity at the posttrial directed verdict stage. 15 The application of the law of the case doctrine in this case clearly contravened the pri

1991Indeed, in such cases the law of the case doctrine must yield to a competing doctrine: the requirement of independent review of constitutional facts. 14 The determination on summary judgment that the plaintiffs’ complaint stated a cause of action for defamation by implication should not have abrogated the appellate court’s duty to independently review the record to determine whether, in fact, the plaintiffs carried their burden of proof at trial regarding falsity at the posttrial directed verdict stage. 15 The application of the law of the case doctrine in this case clearly contravened the pri

1984The opinion in the Crawford case also observes that there must be a "true exercise of discretion by balancing the competing factors involved’, citing People v Farrar, 36 Mich App 294 ; 193 NW2d 363 (1971), and that "the people must justify admission”, citing People v McCartney, 60 Mich App 620 ; 231 NW2d 472 (1975).

1984The opinion in the Crawford case also observes that there must be a "true exercise of discretion by balancing the competing factors involved’, citing People v Farrar, 36 Mich App 294 ; 193 NW2d 363 (1971), and that "the people must justify admission”, citing People v McCartney, 60 Mich App 620 ; 231 NW2d 472 (1975).

1980The Court set out the following criteria which were to be considered: "The factors which the judge must weigh in making his determination include: (1) the nature of the prior offense (did it involve an offense which directly bears on credibility, such as perjury?), (2) whether it is for substantially the same conduct for which the defendant is on trial (are the offenses so closely related that the danger that the jury will consider the defendant a 'bad man’ or infer that because he was previously convicted he likely committed this crime, and therefore create prejudice which outweighs the proba

1980The Court set out the following criteria which were to be considered: "The factors which the judge must weigh in making his determination include: (1) the nature of the prior offense (did it involve an offense which directly bears on credibility, such as perjury?), (2) whether it is for substantially the same conduct for which the defendant is on trial (are the offenses so closely related that the danger that the jury will consider the defendant a 'bad man’ or infer that because he was previously convicted he likely committed this crime, and therefore create prejudice which outweighs the proba