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 1895–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCoy v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2026See Abcumby-Blair, 335 Mich App at 227. “[T]he Sixth Amendment, in grant[ing] to the accused personally the right to make his defense, speaks of the assistance of counsel, and an assistant, however expert, is still an assistant.” McCoy v Louisiana, 584 US 414, 421 ; 138 S Ct 1500 ; 200 L Ed 2d 821 (2018) (quotation marks and citations omitted; second alteration in original). 2026See Abcumby-Blair, 335 Mich App at 227. “[T]he Sixth Amendment, in grant[ing] to the accused personally the right to make his defense, speaks of the assistance of counsel, and an assistant, however expert, is still an assistant.” McCoy v Louisiana, 584 US 414, 421 ; 138 S Ct 1500 ; 200 L Ed 2d 821 (2018) (quotation marks and citations omitted; second alteration in original). | 2 | 5 |
Gannett Co. v. DePasqualegreen2 sentences2025For the Sixth Amendment, in “grant[ing] to the accused personally the right to make his defense,” “speaks of the ‘assistance’ of counsel, and an assistant, however expert, is still an assistant.” Faretta [v California], 422 US [806,] 819-820; 95 S Ct 2525 ; [ 45 L Ed 2d 562 (1975)]; see Gannett Co v DePasquale, 443 US 368 , 382 n 10; 99 S Ct 289 ; 61 L Ed 2d 608 (1979) (the Sixth Amendment “contemplat[es] a norm in which the accused, and not a lawyer, is master of his own defense”). 2025For the Sixth Amendment, in “grant[ing] to the accused personally the right to make his defense,” “speaks of the ‘assistance’ of counsel, and an assistant, however expert, is still an assistant.” Faretta [v California], 422 US [806,] 819-820; 95 S Ct 2525 ; [ 45 L Ed 2d 562 (1975)]; see Gannett Co v DePasquale, 443 US 368 , 382 n 10; 99 S Ct 289 ; 61 L Ed 2d 608 (1979) (the Sixth Amendment “contemplat[es] a norm in which the accused, and not a lawyer, is master of his own defense”). | 1 | 3 |
People of Michigan v. Jeremiah Dejuan Abcumby-Blairgreen1 sentence2026See Abcumby-Blair, 335 Mich App at 227. “[T]he Sixth Amendment, in grant[ing] to the accused personally the right to make his defense, speaks of the assistance of counsel, and an assistant, however expert, is still an assistant.” McCoy v Louisiana, 584 US 414, 421 ; 138 S Ct 1500 ; 200 L Ed 2d 821 (2018) (quotation marks and citations omitted; second alteration in original). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences2026Those amendments also “grant[] to the accused personally the right to make his defense.” Faretta v California, 422 US 806, 819 ; 95 S Ct 2525 ; 45 L Ed 2d 562 (1975). 2026Those amendments also “grant[] to the accused personally the right to make his defense.” Faretta v California, 422 US 806, 819 ; 95 S Ct 2525 ; 45 L Ed 2d 562 (1975). | 2 | 2025–2026 |
Howell v. Vito's Trucking and Excavating Co.
green
2 sentences1984The Supreme Court has defined "party” and "privy” as follows: *467 " 'Under the requirement of privity, only parties to the former judgment or their privies may take advantage of or be bound by it. * * * A party in this connection is one who is "directly interested in the subject matter, and had a right to make defense, or to control the proceedings, and to appeal from the judgment.” * * * A privy is one who, after rendition of the judgment, has acquired an interest in the subject matter affected by the judgment through or under one of the parties, as by inheritance, succession, or purchase.’ 1984The Supreme Court has defined "party” and "privy” as follows: *467 " 'Under the requirement of privity, only parties to the former judgment or their privies may take advantage of or be bound by it. * * * A party in this connection is one who is "directly interested in the subject matter, and had a right to make defense, or to control the proceedings, and to appeal from the judgment.” * * * A privy is one who, after rendition of the judgment, has acquired an interest in the subject matter affected by the judgment through or under one of the parties, as by inheritance, succession, or purchase.’ | 2 | 1984–1984 |
Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association
green
2 sentences1984Trust & Savings Ass’n, 19 Cal 2d 807; 122 P2d 892 (1942). 1984The Supreme Court has defined "party” and "privy” as follows: *467 " 'Under the requirement of privity, only parties to the former judgment or their privies may take advantage of or be bound by it. * * * A party in this connection is one who is "directly interested in the subject matter, and had a right to make defense, or to control the proceedings, and to appeal from the judgment.” * * * A privy is one who, after rendition of the judgment, has acquired an interest in the subject matter affected by the judgment through or under one of the parties, as by inheritance, succession, or purchase.’ | 2 | 1984–1984 |
Gonzalez v. United States
green
1 sentence2025Trial management is the lawyer’s province: Counsel provides his or her assistance by making decisions such as “what arguments to pursue, what evidentiary objections to raise, and what agreements to conclude regarding the admission of evidence.” Gonzalez v United States, 553 US 242, 248 ; 128 S Ct 1765 ; 170 L Ed 2d 616 (2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Gonzales v. United States
green
1 sentence2025Trial management is the lawyer’s province: Counsel provides his or her assistance by making decisions such as “what arguments to pursue, what evidentiary objections to raise, and what agreements to conclude regarding the admission of evidence.” Gonzalez v United States, 553 US 242, 248 ; 128 S Ct 1765 ; 170 L Ed 2d 616 (2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Patrick v. US TANGIBLE INV.
green
1 sentence2000Defendant’s unilateral termination of plaintiff’s benefits contravened this public policy favoring plaintiff’s prompt benefit recovery. 5 We note briefly defendant’s incorrect suggestion that plaintiff “is not able to collect no-fault benefits from the Assigned Claims Facility” because “the statute of limitations period [with respect to plaintiff’s *309 potential first-party claim against Allstate] apparently lapsed before Plaintiff became aware of [Allstate’s] identity.” Citing Hunt, supra at 666 , defendant avers that “the Plaintiff’s failure to identify the appropriate, and in this case the | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Fast Air, Inc v. Knight
green
1 sentence2000Defendant’s unilateral termination of plaintiff’s benefits contravened this public policy favoring plaintiff’s prompt benefit recovery. 5 We note briefly defendant’s incorrect suggestion that plaintiff “is not able to collect no-fault benefits from the Assigned Claims Facility” because “the statute of limitations period [with respect to plaintiff’s *309 potential first-party claim against Allstate] apparently lapsed before Plaintiff became aware of [Allstate’s] identity.” Citing Hunt, supra at 666 , defendant avers that “the Plaintiff’s failure to identify the appropriate, and in this case the | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hunt v. Citizens Insurance
green
1 sentence2000Defendant’s unilateral termination of plaintiff’s benefits contravened this public policy favoring plaintiff’s prompt benefit recovery. 5 We note briefly defendant’s incorrect suggestion that plaintiff “is not able to collect no-fault benefits from the Assigned Claims Facility” because “the statute of limitations period [with respect to plaintiff’s *309 potential first-party claim against Allstate] apparently lapsed before Plaintiff became aware of [Allstate’s] identity.” Citing Hunt, supra at 666 , defendant avers that “the Plaintiff’s failure to identify the appropriate, and in this case the | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Clark v. Beckenstein
neutral
1 sentence1974That holding has been cited only in Clark, supra, and even there, as we read Clark , was not followed. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Cobe v. Summers
neutral
1 sentence1925Cobe v. Summers, 143 Mich. 117 ; Dalton v. Weber, 203 Mich. 455 ; Umphrey v. Auger, 208 Mich. 276 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Dalton v. Weber
green
1 sentence1925Cobe v. Summers, 143 Mich. 117 ; Dalton v. Weber, 203 Mich. 455 ; Umphrey v. Auger, 208 Mich. 276 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Umphrey v. Auyer
neutral
1 sentence1925Cobe v. Summers, 143 Mich. 117 ; Dalton v. Weber, 203 Mich. 455 ; Umphrey v. Auger, 208 Mich. 276 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Hayes v. Livingston
green
1 sentence1895Hayes v. Livingston, 34 Mich. 384 ; Cronin v. Gore, 38 Id. 381. | 1 | 1895–1895 |
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.