13 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1947–2026 5 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. Hoffmangreen2 sentences2017We note that in Hoffman, this Court held that “the federal constitution does not require the administration of Miranda warnings, including the right of appointed counsel, before questioning of a target of a grand jury inquiry” and that “Miranda is confined to cases involving custodial interrogation in a police-dominated atmosphere.” Hoffman, 205 Mich App at 6, 8 . 2017We note that in Hoffman, this Court held that “the federal constitution does not require the administration of Miranda warnings, including the right of appointed counsel, before questioning of a target of a grand jury inquiry” and that “Miranda is confined to cases involving custodial interrogation in a police-dominated atmosphere.” Hoffman, 205 Mich App at 6, 8 . | 2 | 2 |
Hurtado v. Californiagreen2 sentences2025However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require states to apply the Fifth Amendment’s grand-jury requirement, Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466 , 477 n 3; 120 S Ct 2348 ; 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000); Rose v Mitchell, 443 US 545 , 557 n 7; 99 S Ct 2993 ; 61 L Ed 2d 739 (1979); Alexander v Louisiana, 405 US 625, 633 ; 92 S Ct 1221 ; 31 L Ed 2d 536 (1972); Hurtado v California, 110 US 516 , 520- 521, 537-538; 4 S Ct 111 ; 28 L Ed 232 (1884), and the Privileges and Immunities Clause concerns only citizens of the United States, not citizens of the in 2025However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require states to apply the Fifth Amendment’s grand-jury requirement, Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466 , 477 n 3; 120 S Ct 2348 ; 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000); Rose v Mitchell, 443 US 545 , 557 n 7; 99 S Ct 2993 ; 61 L Ed 2d 739 (1979); Alexander v Louisiana, 405 US 625, 633 ; 92 S Ct 1221 ; 31 L Ed 2d 536 (1972); Hurtado v California, 110 US 516 , 520- 521, 537-538; 4 S Ct 111 ; 28 L Ed 232 (1884), and the Privileges and Immunities Clause concerns only citizens of the United States, not citizens of the in | 1 | 5 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2025However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require states to apply the Fifth Amendment’s grand-jury requirement, Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466 , 477 n 3; 120 S Ct 2348 ; 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000); Rose v Mitchell, 443 US 545 , 557 n 7; 99 S Ct 2993 ; 61 L Ed 2d 739 (1979); Alexander v Louisiana, 405 US 625, 633 ; 92 S Ct 1221 ; 31 L Ed 2d 536 (1972); Hurtado v California, 110 US 516 , 520- 521, 537-538; 4 S Ct 111 ; 28 L Ed 232 (1884), and the Privileges and Immunities Clause concerns only citizens of the United States, not citizens of the in 2025However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require states to apply the Fifth Amendment’s grand-jury requirement, Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466 , 477 n 3; 120 S Ct 2348 ; 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000); Rose v Mitchell, 443 US 545 , 557 n 7; 99 S Ct 2993 ; 61 L Ed 2d 739 (1979); Alexander v Louisiana, 405 US 625, 633 ; 92 S Ct 1221 ; 31 L Ed 2d 536 (1972); Hurtado v California, 110 US 516 , 520- 521, 537-538; 4 S Ct 111 ; 28 L Ed 232 (1884), and the Privileges and Immunities Clause concerns only citizens of the United States, not citizens of the in | 1 | 3 |
People v. Kevorkiangreen2 sentences2026See e.g., People v Kevorkian, 447 Mich 436, 475 ; 527 NW2d 714 (1994) (outlining the basic premise of a substantive due process argument). 2026See e.g., People v Kevorkian, 447 Mich 436, 475 ; 527 NW2d 714 (1994) (outlining the basic premise of a substantive due process argument). | 1 | 1 |
Butchers' Benevolent Ass'n v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing & Slaughter-House Co.green2 sentences2025See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36, 74-75 ; 21 L Ed 394 (1872); McDonald v Chicago, 561 US 742, 758 ; 130 S Ct 3020 ; 177 L Ed 2d 894 (2010). 2025See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36, 74-75 ; 21 L Ed 394 (1872); McDonald v Chicago, 561 US 742, 758 ; 130 S Ct 3020 ; 177 L Ed 2d 894 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carinesgreen2 sentences2025People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 752-753, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999) Defendant acknowledges that the United States Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution does not impose the Fifth Amendment’s grand jury requirement in felony cases on the states. 2025People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 752-753, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999) Defendant acknowledges that the United States Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution does not impose the Fifth Amendment’s grand jury requirement in felony cases on the states. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bellancagreen2 sentences2015See People v Bellanca, 386 Mich 708, 712 ; 194 NW2d 863 (1972), and MCL 767.19g(2). 6 Presumably, the prosecutor relays this fact to witnesses before they agree to testify at the grand jury inquiry. 2015See People v Bellanca, 386 Mich 708, 712 ; 194 NW2d 863 (1972), and MCL 767.19g(2). 6 Presumably, the prosecutor relays this fact to witnesses before they agree to testify at the grand jury inquiry. | 1 | 1 |
Yaner v. Peoplegreen2 sentences1972People v Annis, 13 Mich 511, 514 (1865); Yaner v People, 34 Mich 286, 287 (1876). 1972People v Annis, 13 Mich 511, 514 (1865); Yaner v People, 34 Mich 286, 287 (1876). | 1 | 1 |
Annis v. Peoplegreen2 sentences1972People v Annis, 13 Mich 511, 514 (1865); Yaner v People, 34 Mich 286, 287 (1876). 1972People v Annis, 13 Mich 511, 514 (1865); Yaner v People, 34 Mich 286, 287 (1876). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alexander v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2025However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require states to apply the Fifth Amendment’s grand-jury requirement, Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466 , 477 n 3; 120 S Ct 2348 ; 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000); Rose v Mitchell, 443 US 545 , 557 n 7; 99 S Ct 2993 ; 61 L Ed 2d 739 (1979); Alexander v Louisiana, 405 US 625, 633 ; 92 S Ct 1221 ; 31 L Ed 2d 536 (1972); Hurtado v California, 110 US 516 , 520- 521, 537-538; 4 S Ct 111 ; 28 L Ed 232 (1884), and the Privileges and Immunities Clause concerns only citizens of the United States, not citizens of the in 2025However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require states to apply the Fifth Amendment’s grand-jury requirement, Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466 , 477 n 3; 120 S Ct 2348 ; 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000); Rose v Mitchell, 443 US 545 , 557 n 7; 99 S Ct 2993 ; 61 L Ed 2d 739 (1979); Alexander v Louisiana, 405 US 625, 633 ; 92 S Ct 1221 ; 31 L Ed 2d 536 (1972); Hurtado v California, 110 US 516 , 520- 521, 537-538; 4 S Ct 111 ; 28 L Ed 232 (1884), and the Privileges and Immunities Clause concerns only citizens of the United States, not citizens of the in | 3 | 2021–2026 |
Rose v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2025However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require states to apply the Fifth Amendment’s grand-jury requirement, Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466 , 477 n 3; 120 S Ct 2348 ; 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000); Rose v Mitchell, 443 US 545 , 557 n 7; 99 S Ct 2993 ; 61 L Ed 2d 739 (1979); Alexander v Louisiana, 405 US 625, 633 ; 92 S Ct 1221 ; 31 L Ed 2d 536 (1972); Hurtado v California, 110 US 516 , 520- 521, 537-538; 4 S Ct 111 ; 28 L Ed 232 (1884), and the Privileges and Immunities Clause concerns only citizens of the United States, not citizens of the in 2025However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require states to apply the Fifth Amendment’s grand-jury requirement, Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466 , 477 n 3; 120 S Ct 2348 ; 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000); Rose v Mitchell, 443 US 545 , 557 n 7; 99 S Ct 2993 ; 61 L Ed 2d 739 (1979); Alexander v Louisiana, 405 US 625, 633 ; 92 S Ct 1221 ; 31 L Ed 2d 536 (1972); Hurtado v California, 110 US 516 , 520- 521, 537-538; 4 S Ct 111 ; 28 L Ed 232 (1884), and the Privileges and Immunities Clause concerns only citizens of the United States, not citizens of the in | 3 | 2021–2026 |
People v. Glass
green
1 sentence2026See e.g., Apprendi, 530 US at 477 n 3; Glass, 464 Mich at 278 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
McDonald v. City of Chicago
green
2 sentences2025See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36, 74-75 ; 21 L Ed 394 (1872); McDonald v Chicago, 561 US 742, 758 ; 130 S Ct 3020 ; 177 L Ed 2d 894 (2010). 2025See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36, 74-75 ; 21 L Ed 394 (1872); McDonald v Chicago, 561 US 742, 758 ; 130 S Ct 3020 ; 177 L Ed 2d 894 (2010). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Calandra
green
2 sentences1998The grand jury’s investigative power must be broad if its public responsibility is adequately to be discharged. [United States v Calandra, 414 US 338, 343-344 ; 94 S Ct 613 ; 38 L Ed 2d 561 (1974).] Accordingly, because we conclude that the convening order issued by this Court was not defective in that it failed to specify the scope of the grand jury inquiry, we reverse the circuit court’s affirmance of the district court’s order quashing defendant’s indictment. 1998The grand jury’s investigative power must be broad if its public responsibility is adequately to be discharged. [United States v Calandra, 414 US 338, 343-344 ; 94 S Ct 613 ; 38 L Ed 2d 561 (1974).] Accordingly, because we conclude that the convening order issued by this Court was not defective in that it failed to specify the scope of the grand jury inquiry, we reverse the circuit court’s affirmance of the district court’s order quashing defendant’s indictment. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Matter of Doe
green
1 sentence1985However, Doe, supra, is distinguishable. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Hoffman v. United States
green
2 sentences1969The correct standard for the compulsion of testimony is, I believe, as stated in Hoffman v. United States (1951), 341 US 479 ( 71 S Ct 814 , 95 L Ed 1118 ); also an appeal from a conviction of criminal contempt for asserting the privilege in response to a grand jury inquiry. 1969The correct standard for the compulsion of testimony is, I believe, as stated in Hoffman v. United States (1951), 341 US 479 ( 71 S Ct 814 , 95 L Ed 1118 ); also an appeal from a conviction of criminal contempt for asserting the privilege in response to a grand jury inquiry. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
People v. Doe
green
1 sentence1947As stated in the case of In re Slattery, supra, page 477: “The law is stated by Mr. Justice Fellows, speak-in'g for the Court in People v. Doe, 226 Mich. 5 : "'The return must be taken as true. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
In Re Slattery
green
1 sentence1947As stated in the case of In re Slattery, supra, page 477: “The law is stated by Mr. Justice Fellows, speak-in'g for the Court in People v. Doe, 226 Mich. 5 : "'The return must be taken as true. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
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.