evaluation factors in Michigan

2017In Grimm, 291 Mich App at 149 - 150, this Court stated and ruled: -5- Petitioner contends that this Court's evaluation of factors analogous to those cited in Vicencio v Jaime Ramirez, MD, PC, 211 Mich App 501 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995), would indicate that the dismissal was an abuse of discretion and urges the adoption of similar factors here.

2017In Grimm, 291 Mich App at 149 - 150, this Court stated and ruled: -5- Petitioner contends that this Court's evaluation of factors analogous to those cited in Vicencio v Jaime Ramirez, MD, PC, 211 Mich App 501 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995), would indicate that the dismissal was an abuse of discretion and urges the adoption of similar factors here.

2018The evaluation of an instruction’s potential coercive effect should also consider “whether the court required, or threatened to require, the jury to deliberate for an unreasonable length of time or for unreasonable intervals.” Id. at 316 .

2016The evaluation of an instruction’s potential coercive effect should also consider “whether the court required, or threatened to require, the jury to deliberate for an unreasonable length of time or for unreasonable intervals.” Id. at 316 .

2017In Grimm, 291 Mich App at 149 - 150, this Court stated and ruled: -5- Petitioner contends that this Court's evaluation of factors analogous to those cited in Vicencio v Jaime Ramirez, MD, PC, 211 Mich App 501 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995), would indicate that the dismissal was an abuse of discretion and urges the adoption of similar factors here.

2017In Grimm, 291 Mich App at 149 - 150, this Court stated and ruled: -5- Petitioner contends that this Court's evaluation of factors analogous to those cited in Vicencio v Jaime Ramirez, MD, PC, 211 Mich App 501 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995), would indicate that the dismissal was an abuse of discretion and urges the adoption of similar factors here.

2015In Swain, 288 Mich App at 638 , this Court described the standard as requiring a defendant to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found the defendant guilty.

2014In Swain, 288 Mich App at 638 , this Court described the standard as requiring a defendant to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found the defendant guilty.

2015Herrera itself declined to precisely identify what standard would apply to the evaluation of such a claim, explaining only that it “would necessarily be extraordinarily high.” See Herrera, 506 US at 417 .

2014Herrera itself declined to precisely identify what standard would apply to the evaluation of such a claim, explaining only that it “would necessarily be extraordinarily high.” See Herrera, 506 US at 417 .

2022The Supreme Court first noted that it is “inappropriate to treat cases involving physical takings as controlling precedents for the evaluation of a claim that there has been a ‘regulatory taking[.]’ ” Id. at 323 .

2019This recommendation is based on the following evaluation of the factors set forth in In re Brown, 461 Mich. 1291 , 1292-1293; 625 N.W.2d 744 (1999).

2019This recommendation is based on the following evaluation of the factors set forth in In re Brown, 461 Mich. 1291 , 1292-1293; 625 N.W.2d 744 (1999).

2016Additionally, an instruction is coercive if it directs the jury to reach a unanimous verdict “as part of its civic duty” and “contains the message that the failure to reach a verdict constitutes a failure of purpose.” Id., citing People v Goldsmith, 411 Mich 555, 561 ; 309 NW2d 182 (1981).

2016Additionally, an instruction is coercive if it directs the jury to reach a unanimous verdict “as part of its civic duty” and “contains the message that the failure to reach a verdict constitutes a failure of purpose.” Id., citing People v Goldsmith, 411 Mich 555, 561 ; 309 NW2d 182 (1981).

2015In short, structural errors carry with them Olano’s something “more” that is required to establish the fourth prong. 74 71 Neder, 527 US at 8 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 72 Id. at 8-9 , quoting Rose, 478 US at 577-578 ; see also United States v Dominguez Benitez, 542 US 74, 81 ; 124 S Ct 2333 ; 159 L Ed 2d 157 (2004) (characterizing structural errors as those that “undermin[e] the fairness of a criminal proceeding as a whole”). 73 See Berger, Moving Toward Law: Refocusing the Federal Courts’ Plain Error Doctrine in Criminal Cases, 67 U Miami L Rev 521, 544 (2013) (“[T]he third and

2012The trial court’s determinations indicate that it credited defense counsel’s testimony and held that counsel’s defense strategy was objectively reasonable. “ ‘[Rjegard shall be given to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it.’ ” Dendel, 481 Mich at 130 , quoting MCR 2.613(C).

1991Woodworth, supra, pp 268-269 , discussed two methods of compensating a nonstudent spouse for an interest in an advanced degree: (1) awarding a percentage share of the present value of the future earnings attributable to the degree, or (2) restitution.