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.
14 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Nixongreen2 sentences1994In United States v Nixon, 418 US 683 ; 94 S Ct 3090 ; 41 L Ed 2d 1039 (1974), the Court found that the president’s generalized claim of absolute executive privilege, made in an attempt to bar in camera review of records of conversations between the president and his close advisors, had to yield to the special prosecutor’s demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a criminal trial. 1994In United States v Nixon, 418 US 683 ; 94 S Ct 3090 ; 41 L Ed 2d 1039 (1974), the Court found that the president’s generalized claim of absolute executive privilege, made in an attempt to bar in camera review of records of conversations between the president and his close advisors, had to yield to the special prosecutor’s demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a criminal trial. | 1 | 2 |
McCoy v. Louisianagreen1 sentence2024Therefore, trial counsel’s concession was not contrary to defendant’s assertion of innocence because defendant limited communication with counsel and did not “vociferously insist[] that he did not engage in the charged acts[.]” McCoy, 584 US at 417 (emphasis added).1 Accordingly, trial counsel’s concession of guilt as to the trespassing charge did not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Paul Cieslowskigreen1 sentence2016See generally Amezcue v Ochoa, 577 Fed App’x 699, 700-701 (CA 9 2014) (finding plea and stipulation to sentence waived claim that the sentence violated the defendant’s right to a jury trial); United States v Cieslowski, 410 F3d 353, 364 (CA 7 2005) (concluding that a sentence imposed under a plea agreement “arises directly from the agreement itself” and not from the sentencing guidelines). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Rhodesgreen2 sentences1971In a considerable number of cases the Court has declared that the “any-rationale-basis-for-the-elassification” analysis, utilized in appraising legislation regulating business or industry, does not circumscribe the inquiry where the classification is “suspect” or the discrimination concerns a “fundamental right” and that in such a case the burden, a “very heavy burden of justification”, must be carried by the state contending that the legislation is valid. 8 In Williams v. Rhodes (1968), 393 US 23, 30 ( 89 S Ct 5 , 21 L Ed 2d 24 ), a voting rights case, the Court moved toward a more generalize 1971In a considerable number of cases the Court has declared that the “any-rationale-basis-for-the-elassification” analysis, utilized in appraising legislation regulating business or industry, does not circumscribe the inquiry where the classification is “suspect” or the discrimination concerns a “fundamental right” and that in such a case the burden, a “very heavy burden of justification”, must be carried by the state contending that the legislation is valid. 8 In Williams v. Rhodes (1968), 393 US 23, 30 ( 89 S Ct 5 , 21 L Ed 2d 24 ), a voting rights case, the Court moved toward a more generalize | 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. Hana
green
2 sentences2018We acknowledge that while these issues are concerning, they do not necessarily dictate the result on remand based on the recognition that “incidental spillover prejudice . . . is almost inevitable in a multi-defendant trial[.]” People v Hana, 447 Mich 325, 349 ; 524 NW2d 682 (1994), amended 447 Mich 1203 (1994). 2018We acknowledge that while these issues are concerning, they do not necessarily dictate the result on remand based on the recognition that “incidental spillover prejudice . . . is almost inevitable in a multi-defendant trial[.]” People v Hana, 447 Mich 325, 349 ; 524 NW2d 682 (1994), amended 447 Mich 1203 (1994). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Stanaway
green
2 sentences2017Under People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643, 649-650 ; 521 NW2d 557 (1994), the privileged reports and records sought by defendant would only be available for disclosure or in-camera review in order to protect his constitutional rights if he “demonstrated a good-faith belief, grounded in articulable fact, that there [was] a reasonable probability that the records contain[ed] material information necessary to his defense.” A generalized claim of need for the records and reports predicated on the belief that they might contain impeachment evidence or potentially exculpatory evidence would constitute a 2017Under People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643, 649-650 ; 521 NW2d 557 (1994), the privileged reports and records sought by defendant would only be available for disclosure or in-camera review in order to protect his constitutional rights if he “demonstrated a good-faith belief, grounded in articulable fact, that there [was] a reasonable probability that the records contain[ed] material information necessary to his defense.” A generalized claim of need for the records and reports predicated on the belief that they might contain impeachment evidence or potentially exculpatory evidence would constitute a | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Emanuel
green
2 sentences2000Finally, this Court held that, “where the evidence *371 sought is ‘demonstrably relevant’ to the [criminal] case at issue, a generalized claim of privilege must yield to the specific need for evidence.” Johnson, supra at 389 , citing People v Emanuel, 98 Mich App 163, 187 ; 295 NW2d 875 (1980). 2000Finally, this Court held that, “where the evidence *371 sought is ‘demonstrably relevant’ to the [criminal] case at issue, a generalized claim of privilege must yield to the specific need for evidence.” Johnson, supra at 389 , citing People v Emanuel, 98 Mich App 163, 187 ; 295 NW2d 875 (1980). | 2 | 1981–2000 |
People v. Daoud
green
2 sentences2018Consequently, these cases conclude that when police provide a generalized warning regarding the “right to an attorney”—without any temporal qualifications or limitations on that right—the police have complied with Miranda because a reasonable person would understand that an unqualified right to an attorney begins immediately and continues forward in 6 Numerous decisions from the Michigan Supreme Court have similarly quoted formulations of the Miranda warnings that convey the right to the “presence of an attorney” or more specifically the right to “the presence of an attorney during any questio 2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Tanner
green
1 sentence2018Consequently, these cases conclude that when police provide a generalized warning regarding the “right to an attorney”—without any temporal qualifications or limitations on that right—the police have complied with Miranda because a reasonable person would understand that an unqualified right to an attorney begins immediately and continues forward in 6 Numerous decisions from the Michigan Supreme Court have similarly quoted formulations of the Miranda warnings that convey the right to the “presence of an attorney” or more specifically the right to “the presence of an attorney during any questio | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Elliott
green
1 sentence2018Consequently, these cases conclude that when police provide a generalized warning regarding the “right to an attorney”—without any temporal qualifications or limitations on that right—the police have complied with Miranda because a reasonable person would understand that an unqualified right to an attorney begins immediately and continues forward in 6 Numerous decisions from the Michigan Supreme Court have similarly quoted formulations of the Miranda warnings that convey the right to the “presence of an attorney” or more specifically the right to “the presence of an attorney during any questio | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Grant
green
1 sentence1994Absent a clear legislative directive, we cannot consider the preliminary jury instruction involved here to avoid the more generalized requirement that no judgment or verdict may be reversed absent a miscarriage of justice. [ Id. at 543 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Davis
green
2 sentences1980However, a more recent case, People v Davis, 91 Mich App 434 ; 283 NW2d 768 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 868 (1979), held that, at least in the discovery context, a generalized claim of privilege must yield only to a demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending case, i.e., that the evidence sought must be "demonstrably relevant”. 1980However, a more recent case, People v Davis, 91 Mich App 434 ; 283 NW2d 768 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 868 (1979), held that, at least in the discovery context, a generalized claim of privilege must yield only to a demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending case, i.e., that the evidence sought must be "demonstrably relevant”. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Wilson v. Estate of Hotchkiss
neutral
1 sentence1968Nor can this Court extend Wilson v. Hotchkiss Estate (1890), 81 Mich 172 , to forbid admission of the receipt in the case at bar. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.