impact violation in Michigan

12 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2017 0 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.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Swangreen michctapp · 1974 · cited in 3 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1977–1983 2 sentences 1977The purpose of the first criterion was explained in People v Swan, 56 Mich App 22, 32 ; 223 NW2d 346, 351 (1974), as one to deter prosecutorial and police misconduct and to safeguard those individual rights which are so fundamental that the impact of their violation cannot be fully assessed. 1977The purpose of the first criterion was explained in People v Swan, 56 Mich App 22, 32 ; 223 NW2d 346, 351 (1974), as one to deter prosecutorial and police misconduct and to safeguard those individual rights which are so fundamental that the impact of their violation cannot be fully assessed.	3	3
People v. Mobleygreen mich · 1973 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1974–1983 2 sentences 1983People v Swan, 56 Mich App 22, 32, fn 6 ; 223 NW2d 346 (1974), lv den 395 Mich 810 (1975), see also People v Mobley, supra, pp 65-66 . 1974Thus, the nature or amount of evidence produced against the defendant at trial is irrelevant to the application of the criterion. 7 See People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563 ; 194 NW2d 709, 713 (1972) ; People v Dunn, 46 Mich App 226, 231 ; 208 NW2d 239, 241 (1973) ; People v Taylor, 44 Mich App 640, 648 ; 205 NW2d 884, 889 (1973); People v Simons, 42 Mich App 400, 403 ; 202 NW2d 575, 576 (1972). 8 See Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 23 ; 87 S Ct 824, 827 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705, 710 (1967); People v Mobley, 390 Mich 57, 65 ; 210 NW2d 327, 332 (1973); People v Medcoff, 344 Mich 108 ; 73 NW2d 537 (195	1	2
People v. Lukitygreen mich · 1999 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017I do not read Lukity or any other 4 case to suggest otherwise, nor has the majority cited any authority to that effect. 2 To the contrary, assessing just how big an impact an error has had on a defendant’s defense falls comfortably within Lukity’s mandate that the reviewing court “focus[] on the nature of the error . . . .” Lukity, 460 Mich at 495 (citation and quotation marks omitted).	1	1
Commonwealth v. Davisgreen pa · 1973 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996Rev. 988 , 992 (1973).12 12Accord, Commonwealth v. Davis, 452 Pa. 171, 177 , 305 A.2d 715, 719 (1973) (citations omitted): "This reasonable doubt standard reflects a fundamental belief that once ... error has been established, it is far worse to conclude incorrectly that the error was harmless than it is to conclude incorrectly that the error was reversible." Second, there are sound reasons for applying the same standard for determining harmless error whether the error violates state or federal law. 1996Rev. 988 , 992 (1973).12 12Accord, Commonwealth v. Davis, 452 Pa. 171, 177 , 305 A.2d 715, 719 (1973) (citations omitted): "This reasonable doubt standard reflects a fundamental belief that once ... error has been established, it is far worse to conclude incorrectly that the error was harmless than it is to conclude incorrectly that the error was reversible." Second, there are sound reasons for applying the same standard for determining harmless error whether the error violates state or federal law.	1	1
People v. Hodogreen michctapp · 1974 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 2 sentences 1978See People v Hodo, 51 Mich App 628 ; 215 NW2d 733 (1974). 1978See People v Hodo, 51 Mich App 628 ; 215 NW2d 733 (1974).	1	1
People v. Taylorgreen michctapp · 1973 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974Thus, the nature or amount of evidence produced against the defendant at trial is irrelevant to the application of the criterion. 7 See People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563 ; 194 NW2d 709, 713 (1972) ; People v Dunn, 46 Mich App 226, 231 ; 208 NW2d 239, 241 (1973) ; People v Taylor, 44 Mich App 640, 648 ; 205 NW2d 884, 889 (1973); People v Simons, 42 Mich App 400, 403 ; 202 NW2d 575, 576 (1972). 8 See Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 23 ; 87 S Ct 824, 827 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705, 710 (1967); People v Mobley, 390 Mich 57, 65 ; 210 NW2d 327, 332 (1973); People v Medcoff, 344 Mich 108 ; 73 NW2d 537 (195 1974Thus, the nature or amount of evidence produced against the defendant at trial is irrelevant to the application of the criterion. 7 See People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563 ; 194 NW2d 709, 713 (1972) ; People v Dunn, 46 Mich App 226, 231 ; 208 NW2d 239, 241 (1973) ; People v Taylor, 44 Mich App 640, 648 ; 205 NW2d 884, 889 (1973); People v Simons, 42 Mich App 400, 403 ; 202 NW2d 575, 576 (1972). 8 See Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 23 ; 87 S Ct 824, 827 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705, 710 (1967); People v Mobley, 390 Mich 57, 65 ; 210 NW2d 327, 332 (1973); People v Medcoff, 344 Mich 108 ; 73 NW2d 537 (195	1	1
People v. Robinsongreen mich · 1972 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974Thus, the nature or amount of evidence produced against the defendant at trial is irrelevant to the application of the criterion. 7 See People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563 ; 194 NW2d 709, 713 (1972) ; People v Dunn, 46 Mich App 226, 231 ; 208 NW2d 239, 241 (1973) ; People v Taylor, 44 Mich App 640, 648 ; 205 NW2d 884, 889 (1973); People v Simons, 42 Mich App 400, 403 ; 202 NW2d 575, 576 (1972). 8 See Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 23 ; 87 S Ct 824, 827 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705, 710 (1967); People v Mobley, 390 Mich 57, 65 ; 210 NW2d 327, 332 (1973); People v Medcoff, 344 Mich 108 ; 73 NW2d 537 (195 1974Thus, the nature or amount of evidence produced against the defendant at trial is irrelevant to the application of the criterion. 7 See People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563 ; 194 NW2d 709, 713 (1972) ; People v Dunn, 46 Mich App 226, 231 ; 208 NW2d 239, 241 (1973) ; People v Taylor, 44 Mich App 640, 648 ; 205 NW2d 884, 889 (1973); People v Simons, 42 Mich App 400, 403 ; 202 NW2d 575, 576 (1972). 8 See Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 23 ; 87 S Ct 824, 827 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705, 710 (1967); People v Mobley, 390 Mich 57, 65 ; 210 NW2d 327, 332 (1973); People v Medcoff, 344 Mich 108 ; 73 NW2d 537 (195	1	1
People v. Simonsgreen michctapp · 1972 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974Thus, the nature or amount of evidence produced against the defendant at trial is irrelevant to the application of the criterion. 7 See People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563 ; 194 NW2d 709, 713 (1972) ; People v Dunn, 46 Mich App 226, 231 ; 208 NW2d 239, 241 (1973) ; People v Taylor, 44 Mich App 640, 648 ; 205 NW2d 884, 889 (1973); People v Simons, 42 Mich App 400, 403 ; 202 NW2d 575, 576 (1972). 8 See Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 23 ; 87 S Ct 824, 827 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705, 710 (1967); People v Mobley, 390 Mich 57, 65 ; 210 NW2d 327, 332 (1973); People v Medcoff, 344 Mich 108 ; 73 NW2d 537 (195 1974Thus, the nature or amount of evidence produced against the defendant at trial is irrelevant to the application of the criterion. 7 See People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563 ; 194 NW2d 709, 713 (1972) ; People v Dunn, 46 Mich App 226, 231 ; 208 NW2d 239, 241 (1973) ; People v Taylor, 44 Mich App 640, 648 ; 205 NW2d 884, 889 (1973); People v Simons, 42 Mich App 400, 403 ; 202 NW2d 575, 576 (1972). 8 See Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 23 ; 87 S Ct 824, 827 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705, 710 (1967); People v Mobley, 390 Mich 57, 65 ; 210 NW2d 327, 332 (1973); People v Medcoff, 344 Mich 108 ; 73 NW2d 537 (195	1	1
Chapman v. Californiared scotus · 1967 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974Thus, the nature or amount of evidence produced against the defendant at trial is irrelevant to the application of the criterion. 7 See People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563 ; 194 NW2d 709, 713 (1972) ; People v Dunn, 46 Mich App 226, 231 ; 208 NW2d 239, 241 (1973) ; People v Taylor, 44 Mich App 640, 648 ; 205 NW2d 884, 889 (1973); People v Simons, 42 Mich App 400, 403 ; 202 NW2d 575, 576 (1972). 8 See Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 23 ; 87 S Ct 824, 827 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705, 710 (1967); People v Mobley, 390 Mich 57, 65 ; 210 NW2d 327, 332 (1973); People v Medcoff, 344 Mich 108 ; 73 NW2d 537 (195 1974Thus, the nature or amount of evidence produced against the defendant at trial is irrelevant to the application of the criterion. 7 See People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563 ; 194 NW2d 709, 713 (1972) ; People v Dunn, 46 Mich App 226, 231 ; 208 NW2d 239, 241 (1973) ; People v Taylor, 44 Mich App 640, 648 ; 205 NW2d 884, 889 (1973); People v Simons, 42 Mich App 400, 403 ; 202 NW2d 575, 576 (1972). 8 See Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 23 ; 87 S Ct 824, 827 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705, 710 (1967); People v Mobley, 390 Mich 57, 65 ; 210 NW2d 327, 332 (1973); People v Medcoff, 344 Mich 108 ; 73 NW2d 537 (195	1	1
People v. Dunngreen michctapp · 1973 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974Thus, the nature or amount of evidence produced against the defendant at trial is irrelevant to the application of the criterion. 7 See People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563 ; 194 NW2d 709, 713 (1972) ; People v Dunn, 46 Mich App 226, 231 ; 208 NW2d 239, 241 (1973) ; People v Taylor, 44 Mich App 640, 648 ; 205 NW2d 884, 889 (1973); People v Simons, 42 Mich App 400, 403 ; 202 NW2d 575, 576 (1972). 8 See Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 23 ; 87 S Ct 824, 827 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705, 710 (1967); People v Mobley, 390 Mich 57, 65 ; 210 NW2d 327, 332 (1973); People v Medcoff, 344 Mich 108 ; 73 NW2d 537 (195 1974Thus, the nature or amount of evidence produced against the defendant at trial is irrelevant to the application of the criterion. 7 See People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563 ; 194 NW2d 709, 713 (1972) ; People v Dunn, 46 Mich App 226, 231 ; 208 NW2d 239, 241 (1973) ; People v Taylor, 44 Mich App 640, 648 ; 205 NW2d 884, 889 (1973); People v Simons, 42 Mich App 400, 403 ; 202 NW2d 575, 576 (1972). 8 See Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 23 ; 87 S Ct 824, 827 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705, 710 (1967); People v Mobley, 390 Mich 57, 65 ; 210 NW2d 327, 332 (1973); People v Medcoff, 344 Mich 108 ; 73 NW2d 537 (195	1	1
People v. Wheelergreen michctapp · 1971 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972 1 sentence 1972People v Wheeler, 33 Mich App 733, 736 (1971).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Daley v. LaCroix green mich · 1970 2 sentences 2003Id. at 9-10 . 2003Id. at 11 .	1	2003–2003
People v. Thompson neutral michctapp · 1978 2 sentences 1985The language used does not fall within the Supreme Court’s rule of 'substantial departure’ so as to require reversal.” See also People v Robert G Thompson, 81 Mich App 348, 353-354 ; 265 NW2d 632 (1978), aff'd sub nom on other grounds People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672 ; 299 NW2d 304 (1980); People v Harman, 98 Mich App 541, 542-543 ; 296 NW2d 303 (1980), rev’d 411 Mich 1083 ; 312 NW2d 83 (1981). 316 Whether any deviation from ABA standard jury instruction 5.4 is substantial in the sense that reversal is required depends upon whether the deviation renders the instruction unfair because it might hav 1985The language used does not fall within the Supreme Court’s rule of 'substantial departure’ so as to require reversal.” See also People v Robert G Thompson, 81 Mich App 348, 353-354 ; 265 NW2d 632 (1978), aff'd sub nom on other grounds People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672 ; 299 NW2d 304 (1980); People v Harman, 98 Mich App 541, 542-543 ; 296 NW2d 303 (1980), rev’d 411 Mich 1083 ; 312 NW2d 83 (1981). 316 Whether any deviation from ABA standard jury instruction 5.4 is substantial in the sense that reversal is required depends upon whether the deviation renders the instruction unfair because it might hav	1	1985–1985
People v. Aaron green mich · 1980 2 sentences 1985The language used does not fall within the Supreme Court’s rule of 'substantial departure’ so as to require reversal.” See also People v Robert G Thompson, 81 Mich App 348, 353-354 ; 265 NW2d 632 (1978), aff'd sub nom on other grounds People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672 ; 299 NW2d 304 (1980); People v Harman, 98 Mich App 541, 542-543 ; 296 NW2d 303 (1980), rev’d 411 Mich 1083 ; 312 NW2d 83 (1981). 316 Whether any deviation from ABA standard jury instruction 5.4 is substantial in the sense that reversal is required depends upon whether the deviation renders the instruction unfair because it might hav 1985The language used does not fall within the Supreme Court’s rule of 'substantial departure’ so as to require reversal.” See also People v Robert G Thompson, 81 Mich App 348, 353-354 ; 265 NW2d 632 (1978), aff'd sub nom on other grounds People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672 ; 299 NW2d 304 (1980); People v Harman, 98 Mich App 541, 542-543 ; 296 NW2d 303 (1980), rev’d 411 Mich 1083 ; 312 NW2d 83 (1981). 316 Whether any deviation from ABA standard jury instruction 5.4 is substantial in the sense that reversal is required depends upon whether the deviation renders the instruction unfair because it might hav	1	1985–1985
People v. Harman green michctapp · 1980 2 sentences 1985The language used does not fall within the Supreme Court’s rule of 'substantial departure’ so as to require reversal.” See also People v Robert G Thompson, 81 Mich App 348, 353-354 ; 265 NW2d 632 (1978), aff'd sub nom on other grounds People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672 ; 299 NW2d 304 (1980); People v Harman, 98 Mich App 541, 542-543 ; 296 NW2d 303 (1980), rev’d 411 Mich 1083 ; 312 NW2d 83 (1981). 316 Whether any deviation from ABA standard jury instruction 5.4 is substantial in the sense that reversal is required depends upon whether the deviation renders the instruction unfair because it might hav 1985The language used does not fall within the Supreme Court’s rule of 'substantial departure’ so as to require reversal.” See also People v Robert G Thompson, 81 Mich App 348, 353-354 ; 265 NW2d 632 (1978), aff'd sub nom on other grounds People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672 ; 299 NW2d 304 (1980); People v Harman, 98 Mich App 541, 542-543 ; 296 NW2d 303 (1980), rev’d 411 Mich 1083 ; 312 NW2d 83 (1981). 316 Whether any deviation from ABA standard jury instruction 5.4 is substantial in the sense that reversal is required depends upon whether the deviation renders the instruction unfair because it might hav	1	1985–1985
People Ex Rel. Oakland Prosecuting Attorney v. Bureau of Pardons & Paroles green michctapp · 1977 2 sentences 1981This original mandamus action concerns the impact of the rule set forth in two consolidated cases: People ex rel Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney v Bureau of Pardons and Paroles and Trudeau v Oakland Circuit Judge, 78 Mich App 111 ; 259 NW2d 385 (1977), generally known as the Trudeau decision. 1981This original mandamus action concerns the impact of the rule set forth in two consolidated cases: People ex rel Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney v Bureau of Pardons and Paroles and Trudeau v Oakland Circuit Judge, 78 Mich App 111 ; 259 NW2d 385 (1977), generally known as the Trudeau decision.	1	1981–1981
People v. Christensen green michctapp · 1975 2 sentences 1978People v Christensen, 64 Mich App 23, 33 ; 235 NW2d 50 (1975). 1978People v Christensen, 64 Mich App 23, 33 ; 235 NW2d 50 (1975).	1	1978–1978
People v. Medcoff green mich · 1955 2 sentences 1974Thus, the nature or amount of evidence produced against the defendant at trial is irrelevant to the application of the criterion. 7 See People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563 ; 194 NW2d 709, 713 (1972) ; People v Dunn, 46 Mich App 226, 231 ; 208 NW2d 239, 241 (1973) ; People v Taylor, 44 Mich App 640, 648 ; 205 NW2d 884, 889 (1973); People v Simons, 42 Mich App 400, 403 ; 202 NW2d 575, 576 (1972). 8 See Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 23 ; 87 S Ct 824, 827 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705, 710 (1967); People v Mobley, 390 Mich 57, 65 ; 210 NW2d 327, 332 (1973); People v Medcoff, 344 Mich 108 ; 73 NW2d 537 (195 1974Thus, the nature or amount of evidence produced against the defendant at trial is irrelevant to the application of the criterion. 7 See People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563 ; 194 NW2d 709, 713 (1972) ; People v Dunn, 46 Mich App 226, 231 ; 208 NW2d 239, 241 (1973) ; People v Taylor, 44 Mich App 640, 648 ; 205 NW2d 884, 889 (1973); People v Simons, 42 Mich App 400, 403 ; 202 NW2d 575, 576 (1972). 8 See Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 23 ; 87 S Ct 824, 827 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705, 710 (1967); People v Mobley, 390 Mich 57, 65 ; 210 NW2d 327, 332 (1973); People v Medcoff, 344 Mich 108 ; 73 NW2d 537 (195	1	1974–1974

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316 (5) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.26 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

FL 106 (1966–2026) CA 83 (1956–2025) TX 74 (1969–2021) IL 63 (1970–2025) MN 58 (1943–2018) DC 56 (1964–2026) PA 54 (1962–2026) IN 50 (1973–2025) GA 37 (1967–2025) NY 33 (1951–2026) NJ 30 (1957–2026) OR 25 (1986–2025) KS 22 (1972–2025) MD 19 (1963–2014) LA 18 (1975–2023) MA 17 (1978–2025) CO 16 (1977–2017) VA 14 (1968–2022) WA 14 (1968–2026) TN 14 (1973–2019) CT 13 (1982–2015) MI 12 (1972–2017) NM 12 (1987–2025) MO 11 (1950–2018) WI 10 (1979–2026) OH 9 (1961–2025) NC 9 (1980–2025) UT 9 (1989–2018) KY 8 (1971–2023) ME 8 (1982–2026) WV 7 (1982–2026) MS 7 (1975–2024) IA 7 (1981–2024) NV 6 (1985–2024) HI 6 (1974–2025) OK 5 (1969–2025) RI 5 (1997–2010) SC 4 (2002–2026) WY 4 (1986–2023) MT 4 (1980–2002) AZ 4 (1954–2023) AK 4 (1978–2023) DE 4 (1965–1987) AR 3 (1979–1999) NE 3 (1955–2003) ND 2 (1972–1990) VT 2 (2004–2014) AL 2 (1969–2001) NH 2 (1979–1989)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check