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.
13 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Watkins; People v. Pullengreen2 sentences2023However, as conceded by Vogel, our Supreme Court has already determined that MCL 768.27a “does not impermissibly infringe on this Court’s authority regarding rules of practice and procedure under Const 1963, art 6, § 5.” People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450, 455-456, 475-477 ; 818 NW2d 296 (2012). 2023However, as conceded by Vogel, our Supreme Court has already determined that MCL 768.27a “does not impermissibly infringe on this Court’s authority regarding rules of practice and procedure under Const 1963, art 6, § 5.” People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450, 455-456, 475-477 ; 818 NW2d 296 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
In re Gachgreen2 sentences2022See In re Gach, 315 Mich App 83, 97-101 ; 889 NW2d 707 (2016) (holding that basing termination of a respondent’s parental rights solely on a prior termination creates an unconstitutional presumption of unfitness, and therefore striking down as unconstitutional former MCL 712A.19b(3)(l)). 3 Respondent was ordered to sign releases by the trial court during the trial court proceedings. -4- After father passed away in February 2021, respondent returned to the inpatient substance abuse facility. 2022See In re Gach, 315 Mich App 83, 97-101 ; 889 NW2d 707 (2016) (holding that basing termination of a respondent’s parental rights solely on a prior termination creates an unconstitutional presumption of unfitness, and therefore striking down as unconstitutional former MCL 712A.19b(3)(l)). 3 Respondent was ordered to sign releases by the trial court during the trial court proceedings. -4- After father passed away in February 2021, respondent returned to the inpatient substance abuse facility. | 1 | 1 |
Johanna Woodard v. University of Mich Medical Ctrgreen1 sentence2011See Woodard v Custer, 476 Mich 545, 579-580 (2006) (CAVANAGH, J., concurring); McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 38 (1999) (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting). 3 trial court then instructed the jury that the applicable standard of care was that of “a physician specializing in family practice and working in an urgent care center . . . .” 2 In my view, the trial court seriously erred and deprived plaintiff of a fair trial. | 1 | 1 |
McDougall v. Schanzgreen1 sentence2011See Woodard v Custer, 476 Mich 545, 579-580 (2006) (CAVANAGH, J., concurring); McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 38 (1999) (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting). 3 trial court then instructed the jury that the applicable standard of care was that of “a physician specializing in family practice and working in an urgent care center . . . .” 2 In my view, the trial court seriously erred and deprived plaintiff of a fair trial. | 1 | 1 |
McCarthy v. Menschgreen2 sentences1987Hamilton v Rodgers, 791 F2d 439 (CA 5, 1986); Jones v Chicago, 787 F2d 200 (CA 7, 1986); see Hays v Jefferson Co, Kentucky, 668 F2d 869, 873-874 (CA 6, 1982), cert den 459 US 833 ; 103 S Ct 75 ; 74 L Ed 2d 73 (1982). 1987Hamilton v Rodgers, 791 F2d 439 (CA 5, 1986); Jones v Chicago, 787 F2d 200 (CA 7, 1986); see Hays v Jefferson Co, Kentucky, 668 F2d 869, 873-874 (CA 6, 1982), cert den 459 US 833 ; 103 S Ct 75 ; 74 L Ed 2d 73 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Sanders
green
2 sentences2016Recently, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the one-parent doctrine was “an unconstitutional violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” because it allowed “the court to deprive a parent of this fundamental right without any finding that he or she is unfit.” Id. at 422 . 2014It overruled CR, ruling that “[b]ecause the one-parent doctrine allows the court to deprive a parent of this fundamental right without any finding that he or she is unfit, it is an unconstitutional violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. -2- C. | 2 | 2014–2016 |
Attorney General Ex Rel. Connolly v. Reading
green
1 sentence2018The election commissioners refused to comply with the law, claiming that it was an unconstitutional test.8 Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
John Does v. Richard Snyder
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 706 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Washington v. Recuenco
green
2 sentences2016Lockridge, 498 Mich at 392 n 9, citing Washington v Recuenco, 548 US 212 ; 126 S Ct 2546 ; 165 L Ed 2d 466 (2006). 2016Lockridge, 498 Mich at 392 n 9, citing Washington v Recuenco, 548 US 212 ; 126 S Ct 2546 ; 165 L Ed 2d 466 (2006). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Madrone v. Madrone
green
2 sentences2016Oregon’s Court of Appeals recently addressed this question in In re Madrone, 271 Or App 116 ; 350 P3d 495 (2015), and its analysis offers worthwhile guidance. 2016Oregon’s Court of Appeals recently addressed this question in In re Madrone, 271 Or App 116 ; 350 P3d 495 (2015), and its analysis offers worthwhile guidance. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Lockridge
green
1 sentence2016Lockridge, 498 Mich at 392 n 9, citing Washington v Recuenco, 548 US 212 ; 126 S Ct 2546 ; 165 L Ed 2d 466 (2006). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
green
2 sentences2004In Seminole Tribe of Florida v Florida, 517 US 44 ; 116 S Ct 1114 ; 134 L Ed 2d 252 (1996), the United States Supreme Court held that 25 USC 2710(d)(7), which permits Indian tribes to sue a state in federal court when that state has refused to negotiate in good faith for a tribal-state compact, was an unconstitutional violation of state sovereign immunity as preserved by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. 2004In Seminole Tribe of Florida v Florida, 517 US 44 ; 116 S Ct 1114 ; 134 L Ed 2d 252 (1996), the United States Supreme Court held that 25 USC 2710(d)(7), which permits Indian tribes to sue a state in federal court when that state has refused to negotiate in good faith for a tribal-state compact, was an unconstitutional violation of state sovereign immunity as preserved by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Schwartz v. City of Flint
green
1 sentence1989Finding the ordinance unconstitutional, we remand to the trial court pursuant to Schwartz, supra. The procedure outlined in Schwartz gives plaintiffs the burden of showing that their proposed use is reasonable by a preponderance of the evidence. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Boubel
green
2 sentences1987Hamilton v Rodgers, 791 F2d 439 (CA 5, 1986); Jones v Chicago, 787 F2d 200 (CA 7, 1986); see Hays v Jefferson Co, Kentucky, 668 F2d 869, 873-874 (CA 6, 1982), cert den 459 US 833 ; 103 S Ct 75 ; 74 L Ed 2d 73 (1982). 1987Hamilton v Rodgers, 791 F2d 439 (CA 5, 1986); Jones v Chicago, 787 F2d 200 (CA 7, 1986); see Hays v Jefferson Co, Kentucky, 668 F2d 869, 873-874 (CA 6, 1982), cert den 459 US 833 ; 103 S Ct 75 ; 74 L Ed 2d 73 (1982). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Jefferson v. Southern Express Co.
green
2 sentences1987Hamilton v Rodgers, 791 F2d 439 (CA 5, 1986); Jones v Chicago, 787 F2d 200 (CA 7, 1986); see Hays v Jefferson Co, Kentucky, 668 F2d 869, 873-874 (CA 6, 1982), cert den 459 US 833 ; 103 S Ct 75 ; 74 L Ed 2d 73 (1982). 1987Hamilton v Rodgers, 791 F2d 439 (CA 5, 1986); Jones v Chicago, 787 F2d 200 (CA 7, 1986); see Hays v Jefferson Co, Kentucky, 668 F2d 869, 873-874 (CA 6, 1982), cert den 459 US 833 ; 103 S Ct 75 ; 74 L Ed 2d 73 (1982). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Doty v. Gillett
neutral
2 sentences1980A statutory presumption violates due process if there is no rational connection between the facts established and the facts to be presumed. 25 Although the failure to occupy or *52 develop a mineral interest for an extended length of time would not, in itself, be sufficient to support a finding of abandonment at common law, see Doty v Gillett, 43 Mich 203 ; 5 NW 89 (1880), it is within the Legislature’s power and experience to conclude that the owners who have not developed, transferred or recorded their severed mineral interests for over 20 years have abandoned them. 26 Although some owners w 1980A statutory presumption violates due process if there is no rational connection between the facts established and the facts to be presumed. 25 Although the failure to occupy or *52 develop a mineral interest for an extended length of time would not, in itself, be sufficient to support a finding of abandonment at common law, see Doty v Gillett, 43 Mich 203 ; 5 NW 89 (1880), it is within the Legislature’s power and experience to conclude that the owners who have not developed, transferred or recorded their severed mineral interests for over 20 years have abandoned them. 26 Although some owners w | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.