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 1 courts 2012–2025 3 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. Eisengreen2 sentences2025“A stipulation constitutes a waiver of any alleged error[.]” People v Eisen, 296 Mich App 326, 328 ; 820 NW2d 229 (2012). 2025“A stipulation constitutes a waiver of any alleged error[.]” People v Eisen, 296 Mich App 326, 328 ; 820 NW2d 229 (2012). | 3 | 13 |
People v. Cartergreen2 sentences2025A waiver is an “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right[,]” and “[o]ne who waives his rights . . . may not then seek appellate review of a claimed deprivation of those rights, for his waiver has extinguished any error.” People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 2025A waiver is an “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right[,]” and “[o]ne who waives his rights . . . may not then seek appellate review of a claimed deprivation of those rights, for his waiver has extinguished any error.” People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Rileygreen2 sentences2017People v Eisen, 296 Mich App 326, 328 ; 820 NW2d 229 (2012); see also People v Riley, 465 Mich 442, 449 ; 636 NW2d 514 (2001) (“When a court proceeds in a manner acceptable to all parties, it is not resolving a disputed point and thus does not ordinarily render a ruling susceptible to reversal.”). 2017People v Eisen, 296 Mich App 326, 328 ; 820 NW2d 229 (2012); see also People v Riley, 465 Mich 442, 449 ; 636 NW2d 514 (2001) (“When a court proceeds in a manner acceptable to all parties, it is not resolving a disputed point and thus does not ordinarily render a ruling susceptible to reversal.”). | 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. Quinn
green
2 sentences2017“Counsel is not ineffective for failing to advance a meritless position or make a futile motion,” Henry (After Rem), 305 Mich App at 141 , and Hart was not required to record the statements defendant made in the interview room under MCL 763.8(2). 2017“Counsel is not ineffective for failing to advance a meritless position or make a futile motion,” Henry (After Rem), 305 Mich App at 141 , and Hart was not required to record the statements defendant made in the interview room under MCL 763.8(2). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Simon
green
1 sentence2023Simon, 174 Mich App at 657 ; see also Eisen 296 Mich App at 328 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Dobek
green
2 sentences2020“A stipulation constitutes a waiver of any alleged error, so there is no error for us to review.” People v Eisen, 296 Mich App 326, 328-329 ; 820 NW2d 229 (2012). -2- During the hearing regarding the prosecutor’s motion in limine, the following exchange occurred: The Prosecutor: With regard to the expert’s opinions as to [Mr. Hemwall’s] lack of typical sex offender characteristics, it’s my understanding that for the . . . reasons identified under People v Dobek, [ 274 Mich App 58 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007)1], the parties agree that the expert will not—will not testify regarding the sex offender cha 2020“A stipulation constitutes a waiver of any alleged error, so there is no error for us to review.” People v Eisen, 296 Mich App 326, 328-329 ; 820 NW2d 229 (2012). -2- During the hearing regarding the prosecutor’s motion in limine, the following exchange occurred: The Prosecutor: With regard to the expert’s opinions as to [Mr. Hemwall’s] lack of typical sex offender characteristics, it’s my understanding that for the . . . reasons identified under People v Dobek, [ 274 Mich App 58 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007)1], the parties agree that the expert will not—will not testify regarding the sex offender cha | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.