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.
82 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2026 24 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2025“An expert’s opinion is admissible if it is based on the ‘methods and procedures of science’ rather than ‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation.’ ” Unger, 278 Mich App at 218 , quoting Daubert, 509 US at 590 . -11- Ultimately, the trial court’s determination regarding whether it requires a Daubert hearing to determine the admissibility of expert testimony is within the trial court’s discretion. 2025“An expert’s opinion is admissible if it is based on the ‘methods and procedures of science’ rather than ‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation.’ ” Unger, 278 Mich App at 218 , quoting Daubert, 509 US at 590 . -11- Ultimately, the trial court’s determination regarding whether it requires a Daubert hearing to determine the admissibility of expert testimony is within the trial court’s discretion. | 13 | 34 |
Elher v. Misragreen2 sentences2025Moreover, our Supreme Court has recognized that “it is within a trial court’s discretion how to determine reliability”; that the relevancy of the Daubert factors in assessing reliability may be affected by “the nature of the issue, the expert’s expertise, and the subject of the expert’s testimony”; and that “in some cases, the relevant reliability concerns may focus upon personal knowledge or experience.” [Elher v Misra, 499 Mich 11, 24-25 ; 878 NW2d 790 (2016)] (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025Moreover, our Supreme Court has recognized that “it is within a trial court’s discretion how to determine reliability”; that the relevancy of the Daubert factors in assessing reliability may be affected by “the nature of the issue, the expert’s expertise, and the subject of the expert’s testimony”; and that “in some cases, the relevant reliability concerns may focus upon personal knowledge or experience.” [Elher v Misra, 499 Mich 11, 24-25 ; 878 NW2d 790 (2016)] (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 6 | 15 |
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichaelgreen2 sentences2020The Daubert factors “may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert’s particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony.” Id. at 150 (quotation marks omitted). “[A] trial court should consider the specific factors identified in Daubert where they are reasonable measures of the reliability of expert testimony.” Id. at 152 . 2020The Daubert factors “may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert’s particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony.” Id. at 150 (quotation marks omitted). “[A] trial court should consider the specific factors identified in Daubert where they are reasonable measures of the reliability of expert testimony.” Id. at 152 . | 5 | 16 |
Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.green2 sentences2018Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749, 781 ; 685 NW2d 391 (2004). 2 We earlier denied defendant’s motion to remand for a Daubert hearing and to present a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for his counsel’s decision to forego a Daubert hearing. 2018Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749, 781 ; 685 NW2d 391 (2004). 2 We earlier denied defendant’s motion to remand for a Daubert hearing and to present a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for his counsel’s decision to forego a Daubert hearing. | 4 | 16 |
Ballance v. Dunningtongreen2 sentences2024See Ballance v Dunnington, 241 Mich 383, 386-387 ; 217 NW 329 (1928) (“The standard of care, skill, and diligence required of an X-ray operator is not fixed by the ipse dixit of an expert, but by the care, skill, and diligence ordinarily possessed and exercised by others in the same line of practice and work in similar localities.”). 2024See Ballance v Dunnington, 241 Mich 383, 386-387 ; 217 NW 329 (1928) (“The standard of care, skill, and diligence required of an X-ray operator is not fixed by the ipse dixit of an expert, but by the care, skill, and diligence ordinarily possessed and exercised by others in the same line of practice and work in similar localities.”). | 2 | 2 |
Lenawee County v. Wagleygreen2 sentences2015“The purpose of a Daubert hearing is to filter out unreliable expert evidence.” Lenawee Co v Wagley, 301 Mich App 134, 162 ; 836 NW2d 193 (2013). 2015“The purpose of a Daubert hearing is to filter out unreliable expert evidence.” Lenawee Co v Wagley, 301 Mich App 134, 162 ; 836 NW2d 193 (2013). | 1 | 11 |
People v. Kowalskigreen2 sentences2024See Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993); see also Kowalski, 492 Mich at 140 (opinion by MARY BETH KELLY, J.). 4 The trial court specified that there were two separate issues to be addressed: the need for a Daubert hearing, and whether defendant was “entitled to ask the county to pay” for his expert. 2019Michigan evidentiary law incorporates the requirements from Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993), known as the “Daubert factors,” People v Kowalski, 492 Mich 106, 131 ; 821 NW2d 14 (2012). | 1 | 4 |
Edry v. Adelmangreen2 sentences2019In analyzing the issue, our Supreme Court first considered the Daubert standard, and noted that, to determine the reliability of a proposed expert’s testimony, “[a] lack of supporting literature, while not dispositive, is an important factor in determining the admissibility of expert witness testimony” and that “ ‘[u]nder MRE 702, it is generally not sufficient to simply point to an expert’s experience and background to argue that the expert’s opinion is reliable and, therefore, admissible.’ ” Id. at 22, quoting Edry, 486 Mich at 642 . 2019In analyzing the issue, our Supreme Court first considered the Daubert standard, and noted that, to determine the reliability of a proposed expert’s testimony, “[a] lack of supporting literature, while not dispositive, is an important factor in determining the admissibility of expert witness testimony” and that “ ‘[u]nder MRE 702, it is generally not sufficient to simply point to an expert’s experience and background to argue that the expert’s opinion is reliable and, therefore, admissible.’ ” Id. at 22, quoting Edry, 486 Mich at 642 . | 1 | 3 |
People v. LeBlancgreen2 sentences2024See LeBlanc, 465 Mich at 579 . 2024See LeBlanc, 465 Mich at 579 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ericksengreen2 sentences2020See Ericksen, 288 Mich App at 201 . 2020See Ericksen, 288 Mich App at 201 . | 1 | 1 |
Leonard Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc.green2 sentences2020“A Daubert inquiry is not designed to have the district judge take the place of the jury to decide ultimate issues of credibility and accuracy.” Lapsley v Xtek, Inc, 689 F3d 802, 805 (CA 7, 2012). 2020“A Daubert inquiry is not designed to have the district judge take the place of the jury to decide ultimate issues of credibility and accuracy.” Lapsley v Xtek, Inc, 689 F3d 802, 805 (CA 7, 2012). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rileygreen2 sentences2020See People v Riley, 468 Mich 135, 142 ; 659 NW2d 611 (2003). 2020See People v Riley, 468 Mich 135, 142 ; 659 NW2d 611 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Millsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| City of Westland v. Okopskigreen | 1 | 1 |
| John Eric Thomas, and Wife, Heather Thomas v. City of Chattanooga, Tennesseegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sharon Surles, by Next Friend Jayneice Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appelleegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Michael K. DePAEPE, Executor of the Estate of Kenneth J. DePaepe, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellantgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chapin v. a & L PARTS, INC.
green
2 sentences2019A Daubert analysis does not hinge on discovering “absolute truth” or “resolv[ing] genuine scientific disputes.” Chapin v A & L Parts, Inc, 274 Mich App 122, 127 ; 732 NW2d 578 (2007) (opinion by DAVIS, J.). 2019A Daubert analysis does not hinge on discovering “absolute truth” or “resolv[ing] genuine scientific disputes.” Chapin v A & L Parts, Inc, 274 Mich App 122, 127 ; 732 NW2d 578 (2007) (opinion by DAVIS, J.). | 7 | 2013–2025 |
People v. Unger
green
2 sentences2025“An expert’s opinion is admissible if it is based on the ‘methods and procedures of science’ rather than ‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation.’ ” Unger, 278 Mich App at 218 , quoting Daubert, 509 US at 590 . -11- Ultimately, the trial court’s determination regarding whether it requires a Daubert hearing to determine the admissibility of expert testimony is within the trial court’s discretion. 2025“An expert’s opinion is admissible if it is based on the ‘methods and procedures of science’ rather than ‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation.’ ” Unger, 278 Mich App at 218 , quoting Daubert, 509 US at 590 . -11- Ultimately, the trial court’s determination regarding whether it requires a Daubert hearing to determine the admissibility of expert testimony is within the trial court’s discretion. | 6 | 2013–2025 |
People of Michigan v. Elamin Muhammad
green
2 sentences2021Muhammad, 326 Mich App at 53-58 . 2021Muhammad, 326 Mich App at 53-58 . | 2 | 2019–2021 |
In Re Dodge Estate
green
2 sentences2018Further, “a question is not moot if it will continue to affect a [party] in some collateral way,” In re Dodge Estate, 162 Mich App 573, 584 ; 413 NW2d 449 (1987), and defendants’ Daubert challenge had implications extending beyond summary disposition; as a motion in limine, it was aimed at precluding admission of the challenged expert testimony at trial. 2018Further, “a question is not moot if it will continue to affect a [party] in some collateral way,” In re Dodge Estate, 162 Mich App 573, 584 ; 413 NW2d 449 (1987), and defendants’ Daubert challenge had implications extending beyond summary disposition; as a motion in limine, it was aimed at precluding admission of the challenged expert testimony at trial. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Yost
green
2 sentences2017We agree. “[T]rial courts have an obligation to exercise their discretion as a gatekeeper and ensure that any expert testimony admitted at trial is reliable.” People v Yost, 278 Mich App 341, 394 ; 749 NW2d 753 (2008). 2017We agree. “[T]rial courts have an obligation to exercise their discretion as a gatekeeper and ensure that any expert testimony admitted at trial is reliable.” People v Yost, 278 Mich App 341, 394 ; 749 NW2d 753 (2008). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Craig v. Oakwood Hospital
green
2 sentences2014Craig v Oakwood Hosp, 471 Mich 67, 76 ; 684 NW2d 296 (2004). 2014Craig v Oakwood Hosp, 471 Mich 67, 76 ; 684 NW2d 296 (2004). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Crews
green
2 sentences2025There does not seem to be any Michigan caselaw that addresses excluding this type of evidence, and “[d]efense counsel cannot be deemed deficient for failing to advance a novel legal argument.” People v Crews, 299 Mich App 381, 400 ; 829 NW2d 898 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025There does not seem to be any Michigan caselaw that addresses excluding this type of evidence, and “[d]efense counsel cannot be deemed deficient for failing to advance a novel legal argument.” People v Crews, 299 Mich App 381, 400 ; 829 NW2d 898 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Trakhtenberg
green
1 sentence2025Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich at 51 . 7 Welke’s testimony suggests that she may conduct some of her own research: “I participate in a quarterly research review where – now its done by Zoom where forensic interviewers get together and we discuss our recent research in the field.” -8- Accordingly, his counsel was not ineffective for failing to advance a meritless position. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
General Electric Co. v. Joiner
green
2 sentences2024See Kumho Tire Corp Ltd v Carmichael, 526 US 137 [; 119 S Ct 1167 ; 143 L Ed 2d 238 ] (1999); General Electric Co v Joiner, 522 US 136 [; 118 S Ct 512 ; 139 L Ed 2d 508 ] (1997); Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc, 509 US 579 [; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 ] (1993); Elher; Edry. [Danhoff v Fahim, 511 Mich 966 , 966 (2023).] II. 2024See Kumho Tire Corp Ltd v Carmichael, 526 US 137 [; 119 S Ct 1167 ; 143 L Ed 2d 238 ] (1999); General Electric Co v Joiner, 522 US 136 [; 118 S Ct 512 ; 139 L Ed 2d 508 ] (1997); Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc, 509 US 579 [; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 ] (1993); Elher; Edry. [Danhoff v Fahim, 511 Mich 966 , 966 (2023).] II. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Stanaway
green
2 sentences2024In Stanaway, 446 Mich at 649 , the defendants in consolidated cases moved to discover the alleged victims’ privileged records. 2024In Stanaway, 446 Mich at 649 , the defendants in consolidated cases moved to discover the alleged victims’ privileged records. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Armstrong
green
2 sentences2024The trial court stated that defense counsel’s performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, see Armstrong, 490 Mich at 290 , because defense counsel did not anticipate the 95% statistic testimony as it was not mentioned by the prosecution’s expert before -10- trial; therefore, she did not try to limit that testimony in the Daubert hearing because it was not anticipated. 2024The trial court stated that defense counsel’s performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, see Armstrong, 490 Mich at 290 , because defense counsel did not anticipate the 95% statistic testimony as it was not mentioned by the prosecution’s expert before -10- trial; therefore, she did not try to limit that testimony in the Daubert hearing because it was not anticipated. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Beckley
green
2 sentences2023In support, defendant relies on People v Beckley, 434 Mich 691, 724 ; 456 NW2d 391 (1990)—a case which was decided before the Michigan Supreme Court adopted the Daubert standard—for the proposition that, in certain circumstances, generalized opinion testimony is permitted to help the jurors understand the other witnesses’ testimony. 2023In support, defendant relies on People v Beckley, 434 Mich 691, 724 ; 456 NW2d 391 (1990)—a case which was decided before the Michigan Supreme Court adopted the Daubert standard—for the proposition that, in certain circumstances, generalized opinion testimony is permitted to help the jurors understand the other witnesses’ testimony. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Dobek
green
2 sentences2020Dobek, 274 Mich App at 94 . 2020Dobek, 274 Mich App at 94 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Maiden v. Rozwood
green
2 sentences2020Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 2020Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Bell
green
2 sentences2019Therefore, TrueAllele’s reliability is not properly before us, and we decline to make a ruling on that matter as defendant requests. -9- testimony of the witness on direct examination or which tends or may tend to elucidate the testimony or affect the credibility of the witness.” People v Bell, 88 Mich App 345, 349 ; 276 NW2dd 605 (1979) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2019Therefore, TrueAllele’s reliability is not properly before us, and we decline to make a ruling on that matter as defendant requests. -9- testimony of the witness on direct examination or which tends or may tend to elucidate the testimony or affect the credibility of the witness.” People v Bell, 88 Mich App 345, 349 ; 276 NW2dd 605 (1979) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Aldrich
green
2 sentences2019“To preserve an evidentiary issue for review, a party opposing the admission of evidence must object at trial and specify the same ground for objection that it asserts on appeal.” People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 113 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001), citing MRE 103(a)(1). 2019“To preserve an evidentiary issue for review, a party opposing the admission of evidence must object at trial and specify the same ground for objection that it asserts on appeal.” People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 113 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001), citing MRE 103(a)(1). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Horn
green
2 sentences2019People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 39-40 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008) (discussing futile objections). -7- determined by human operators, and that the governing standards are voluntary. 2019People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 39-40 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008) (discussing futile objections). -7- determined by human operators, and that the governing standards are voluntary. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Lawrence
green
2 sentences2019See Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993); Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749, 781 ; 685 NW2d 391 (2004) (noting that MRE 702 incorporates Daubert’s standards of reliability) However, sentencing decisions must themselves be supported by “reliable evidence.” People v Lawrence, 206 Mich App 378, 379 ; 522 NW2d 654 (1994). 2019See Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993); Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749, 781 ; 685 NW2d 391 (2004) (noting that MRE 702 incorporates Daubert’s standards of reliability) However, sentencing decisions must themselves be supported by “reliable evidence.” People v Lawrence, 206 Mich App 378, 379 ; 522 NW2d 654 (1994). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Szalma green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Ginther green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Babcock green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Heft green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Lockett green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Rock v. Arkansas green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| People v. Murray green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| People v. Mischley green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.