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 2013–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
McDougall v. Schanzgreen2 sentences2015When confronted with a violation of the separation of powers, this Court has noted that it is permissible for one branch to acquiesce in the intrusion of another and thus avoid a constitutional conflict. 48 Here, the commission acquiesced in the Legislature’s presumed violation of the separation of powers when it made SERA applicable to civil servants in Rule 5-13, which provides that “[a] classified employee is eligible for retirement benefits as provided by law.” 49 And Rule 5-13, last amended effective March 48 In Judicial Attorneys Ass’n, 459 Mich at 303, we noted that, although legislativ 2015When confronted with a violation of the separation of powers, this Court has noted that it is permissible for one branch to acquiesce in the intrusion of another and thus avoid a constitutional conflict. 48 Here, the commission acquiesced in the Legislature’s presumed violation of the separation of powers when it made SERA applicable to civil servants in Rule 5-13, which provides that “[a] classified employee is eligible for retirement benefits as provided by law.” 49 And Rule 5-13, last amended effective March 48 In Judicial Attorneys Ass’n, 459 Mich at 303, we noted that, although legislativ | 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. Lukity
green
2 sentences2025People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 495 ; 596 NW2d 607 (1999) (the effect of an “error is evaluated by assessing it in the respect to gangs and gang verbiage and symbolism. 2020Nevertheless, assuming error in the admission of the e-mail, we cannot conclude that the presumed error affected defendant’s substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 763 , or that it “is more probable than not that a different outcome would have resulted without the error,” Lukity, 460 Mich at 495 . | 8 | 2013–2025 |
People v. Carines
green
2 sentences2020Nevertheless, assuming error in the admission of the e-mail, we cannot conclude that the presumed error affected defendant’s substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 763 , or that it “is more probable than not that a different outcome would have resulted without the error,” Lukity, 460 Mich at 495 . 2017Further, assuming plain error, we simply cannot conclude that defendant was prejudiced by the presumed error, i.e., “that the error affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings.” Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . | 6 | 2017–2020 |
Judicial Attorneys Ass'n v. State
green
1 sentence2015In support of this claim, the majority cites Civil Service Rule 5-13, which provides that “[a] classified employee is eligible for retirement benefits as provided by law.” Because the law regarding retirement benefits now encompasses the challenged provisions enacted in 2011 PA 264 , the majority concludes that the commission cannot now revoke its acquiescence without itself 3 See Judicial Attorneys Ass’n v Michigan, 459 Mich 291, 303-304 ; 586 NW2d 894 (1998) (holding certain statutory provisions enacted by the Legislature to be unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine and the | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Judicial Attorneys Ass'n v. State
green
1 sentence2015In support of this claim, the majority cites Civil Service Rule 5-13, which provides that “[a] classified employee is eligible for retirement benefits as provided by law.” Because the law regarding retirement benefits now encompasses the challenged provisions enacted in 2011 PA 264 , the majority concludes that the commission cannot now revoke its acquiescence without itself 3 See Judicial Attorneys Ass’n v Michigan, 459 Mich 291, 303-304 ; 586 NW2d 894 (1998) (holding certain statutory provisions enacted by the Legislature to be unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine and the | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Hunter v. Hunter
green
1 sentence2015In support of this claim, the majority cites Civil Service Rule 5-13, which provides that “[a] classified employee is eligible for retirement benefits as provided by law.” Because the law regarding retirement benefits now encompasses the challenged provisions enacted in 2011 PA 264 , the majority concludes that the commission cannot now revoke its acquiescence without itself 3 See Judicial Attorneys Ass’n v Michigan, 459 Mich 291, 303-304 ; 586 NW2d 894 (1998) (holding certain statutory provisions enacted by the Legislature to be unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine and the | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Perin v. Peuler
red
2 sentences2015When confronted with a violation of the separation of powers, this Court has noted that it is permissible for one branch to acquiesce in the intrusion of another and thus avoid a constitutional conflict. 48 Here, the commission acquiesced in the Legislature’s presumed violation of the separation of powers when it made SERA applicable to civil servants in Rule 5-13, which provides that “[a] classified employee is eligible for retirement benefits as provided by law.” 49 And Rule 5-13, last amended effective March 48 In Judicial Attorneys Ass’n, 459 Mich at 303, we noted that, although legislativ 2015When confronted with a violation of the separation of powers, this Court has noted that it is permissible for one branch to acquiesce in the intrusion of another and thus avoid a constitutional conflict. 48 Here, the commission acquiesced in the Legislature’s presumed violation of the separation of powers when it made SERA applicable to civil servants in Rule 5-13, which provides that “[a] classified employee is eligible for retirement benefits as provided by law.” 49 And Rule 5-13, last amended effective March 48 In Judicial Attorneys Ass’n, 459 Mich at 303, we noted that, although legislativ | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.