11 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2012 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Guilty Plea Casesgreen2 sentences2001In People v Shekoski, 393 Mich 134 ; 224 NW2d 656 (1974), this Court had held that “strict adherence to those requirements 7 is mandatory and that neither substantial compliance nor the absence of prejudicial error will be deemed sufficient.” However, one year later in Guilty Plea Cases, supra, this Court renounced the Shekoski holding that “any failure of strict adherence to the procedure and practice specified in Rule 785.7 [now MCR 6.302] mandates reversal.” Guilty Plea Cases, supra at 113. 2001In People v Shekoski, 393 Mich 134 ; 224 NW2d 656 (1974), this Court had held that “strict adherence to those requirements 7 is mandatory and that neither substantial compliance nor the absence of prejudicial error will be deemed sufficient.” However, one year later in Guilty Plea Cases, supra, this Court renounced the Shekoski holding that “any failure of strict adherence to the procedure and practice specified in Rule 785.7 [now MCR 6.302] mandates reversal.” Guilty Plea Cases, supra at 113. | 2 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Shekoski
green
2 sentences2012In 1974, in People v Shekoski,38 we adopted a “strict adherence” requirement for procedures governing the acceptance of guilty pleas.39 Our order in that case stated “that strict adherence to those requirements is mandatory and that neither substantial compliance nor the absence of prejudicial error will be deemed sufficient.”40 The next year, in Guilty Plea Cases, we renounced Shekoski and adopted a “substantial compliance” test for errors in plea proceedings.41 However, we retained a rule that required reversal for failure to provide advice concerning the maximum possible sentence and any ma 2012In 1974, in People v Shekoski,38 we adopted a “strict adherence” requirement for procedures governing the acceptance of guilty pleas.39 Our order in that case stated “that strict adherence to those requirements is mandatory and that neither substantial compliance nor the absence of prejudicial error will be deemed sufficient.”40 The next year, in Guilty Plea Cases, we renounced Shekoski and adopted a “substantial compliance” test for errors in plea proceedings.41 However, we retained a rule that required reversal for failure to provide advice concerning the maximum possible sentence and any ma | 7 | 1975–2012 |
People v. Hubbard
green
2 sentences1975The bench and bar are hereby advised that strict adherence to those requirements is mandatory and that neither substantial compliance nor the absence of prejudicial error will be deemed suffi cient.” See also People v Hubbard, 57 Mich App 542 ; 226 NW2d 557 (1975). 1975The bench and bar are hereby advised that strict adherence to those requirements is mandatory and that neither substantial compliance nor the absence of prejudicial error will be deemed suffi cient.” See also People v Hubbard, 57 Mich App 542 ; 226 NW2d 557 (1975). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Moskalik v. Dunn
green
2 sentences1975The bench and bar are hereby advised that strict adherence to those requirements is mandatory and that neither substantial compliance nor the absence of prejudicial error will be deemed sufficient." [3] See generally, 49 ALR3d 128, Construction of Statutes or Rules Making Mandatory the Use of Pattern or Uniform Approved Jury Instructions. [4] Recently, in Moskalik v Dunn, 392 Mich 583 ; 221 NW2d 313 (1974), this Court held that an objection at trial is generally required to preserve errors based solely on a deviation from the SJI. 1975The bench and bar are hereby advised that strict adherence to those requirements is mandatory and that neither substantial compliance nor the absence of prejudicial error will be deemed sufficient." [3] See generally, 49 ALR3d 128, Construction of Statutes or Rules Making Mandatory the Use of Pattern or Uniform Approved Jury Instructions. [4] Recently, in Moskalik v Dunn, 392 Mich 583 ; 221 NW2d 313 (1974), this Court held that an objection at trial is generally required to preserve errors based solely on a deviation from the SJI. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.