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.
11 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Metamora Water Service, Incgreen2 sentences2026See People v Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App 376, 387-388 ; 741 NW2d 61 (2007) (“It is the duty of the Supreme Court to overrule . . . caselaw . . . [; however,] the Court of Appeals and the lower courts are bound by the precedent established by the Supreme Court until it takes such action.”) Addressing defendant’s challenge to the sentencing court’s assessment of 10 points for OV 19, this issue is unpreserved because there was no objection. “[T]his Court may review an unpreserved scoring issue for plain error affecting substantial rights.” People v Chelmicki, 305 Mich App 58, 68 ; 850 2026See People v Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App 376, 387-388 ; 741 NW2d 61 (2007) (“It is the duty of the Supreme Court to overrule . . . caselaw . . . [; however,] the Court of Appeals and the lower courts are bound by the precedent established by the Supreme Court until it takes such action.”) Addressing defendant’s challenge to the sentencing court’s assessment of 10 points for OV 19, this issue is unpreserved because there was no objection. “[T]his Court may review an unpreserved scoring issue for plain error affecting substantial rights.” People v Chelmicki, 305 Mich App 58, 68 ; 850 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stanawaygreen1 sentence2016This need might exist in every case involving an accusation of criminal sexual conduct.” Stanaway, 446 Mich at 681 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Norfleet
green
2 sentences2018Addressing defendant’s proportionality argument first, we note that “a proportionality challenge to a given sentence must be based on the individual term imposed and not on the cumulative effect of multiple sentences.” Norfleet, 317 Mich App at 663 . 2018Addressing defendant’s proportionality argument first, we note that “a proportionality challenge to a given sentence must be based on the individual term imposed and not on the cumulative effect of multiple sentences.” Norfleet, 317 Mich App at 663 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. McGhee
green
2 sentences2017However, “attacking the credibility of a theory advanced by a defendant does not shift the burden of proof.” People v McGhee, 268 Mich App 600, 635 ; 709 NW2d 595 (2005). 2017However, “attacking the credibility of a theory advanced by a defendant does not shift the burden of proof.” People v McGhee, 268 Mich App 600, 635 ; 709 NW2d 595 (2005). | 2 | 2015–2017 |
People v. Fields
green
2 sentences2017Addressing defendant’s burden shifting argument, “shifting the burden of proof or persuasion on an element of the crime charged violates due process.” People v Fields, 450 Mich 94, 113 ; 538 NW2d 356 (1995). 2017Addressing defendant’s burden shifting argument, “shifting the burden of proof or persuasion on an element of the crime charged violates due process.” People v Fields, 450 Mich 94, 113 ; 538 NW2d 356 (1995). | 2 | 2015–2017 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2017Addressing defendant’s claim that the prosecution improperly withheld Nielsen’s photographs before trial, defendant is not entitled to relief.2 In Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83, 87 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must prove that: (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence, ( 2017Addressing defendant’s claim that the prosecution improperly withheld Nielsen’s photographs before trial, defendant is not entitled to relief.2 In Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83, 87 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must prove that: (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence, ( | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Chenault
green
2 sentences2017People v Chenault, 495 Mich 142, 155 ; 845 NW2d 731 (2014). 2017People v Chenault, 495 Mich 142, 155 ; 845 NW2d 731 (2014). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Hershey
green
2 sentences2026See People v Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App 376, 387-388 ; 741 NW2d 61 (2007) (“It is the duty of the Supreme Court to overrule . . . caselaw . . . [; however,] the Court of Appeals and the lower courts are bound by the precedent established by the Supreme Court until it takes such action.”) Addressing defendant’s challenge to the sentencing court’s assessment of 10 points for OV 19, this issue is unpreserved because there was no objection. “[T]his Court may review an unpreserved scoring issue for plain error affecting substantial rights.” People v Chelmicki, 305 Mich App 58, 68 ; 850 2026See People v Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App 376, 387-388 ; 741 NW2d 61 (2007) (“It is the duty of the Supreme Court to overrule . . . caselaw . . . [; however,] the Court of Appeals and the lower courts are bound by the precedent established by the Supreme Court until it takes such action.”) Addressing defendant’s challenge to the sentencing court’s assessment of 10 points for OV 19, this issue is unpreserved because there was no objection. “[T]his Court may review an unpreserved scoring issue for plain error affecting substantial rights.” People v Chelmicki, 305 Mich App 58, 68 ; 850 | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Chelmicki
green
2 sentences2026See People v Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App 376, 387-388 ; 741 NW2d 61 (2007) (“It is the duty of the Supreme Court to overrule . . . caselaw . . . [; however,] the Court of Appeals and the lower courts are bound by the precedent established by the Supreme Court until it takes such action.”) Addressing defendant’s challenge to the sentencing court’s assessment of 10 points for OV 19, this issue is unpreserved because there was no objection. “[T]his Court may review an unpreserved scoring issue for plain error affecting substantial rights.” People v Chelmicki, 305 Mich App 58, 68 ; 850 2026See People v Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App 376, 387-388 ; 741 NW2d 61 (2007) (“It is the duty of the Supreme Court to overrule . . . caselaw . . . [; however,] the Court of Appeals and the lower courts are bound by the precedent established by the Supreme Court until it takes such action.”) Addressing defendant’s challenge to the sentencing court’s assessment of 10 points for OV 19, this issue is unpreserved because there was no objection. “[T]his Court may review an unpreserved scoring issue for plain error affecting substantial rights.” People v Chelmicki, 305 Mich App 58, 68 ; 850 | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Lafler v. Cooper
green
1 sentence2016Lafler, ___ US at ___; 132 S Ct at 1384 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Lemmon
green
2 sentences2016Our Supreme Court has stated that “to support a new trial, the witness testimony must ‘contradict[] indisputable physical facts or laws,’ be ‘patently incredible or def[y] physical realities,’ be ‘so inherently implausible that it could not be believed by a reasonable juror,’ or have been ‘seriously impeached’ in a case that was ‘marked by uncertainties and discrepancies.’ ” People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 636 ; 576 NW2d 129 (1988). 2016Our Supreme Court has stated that “to support a new trial, the witness testimony must ‘contradict[] indisputable physical facts or laws,’ be ‘patently incredible or def[y] physical realities,’ be ‘so inherently implausible that it could not be believed by a reasonable juror,’ or have been ‘seriously impeached’ in a case that was ‘marked by uncertainties and discrepancies.’ ” People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 636 ; 576 NW2d 129 (1988). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Stallworth v. Stallworth
green
2 sentences2016This Court discussed child support in Stallworth v Stallworth, 275 Mich App 282, 284-285 ; 738 NW2d 264 (2007): According to the . . . 2016This Court discussed child support in Stallworth v Stallworth, 275 Mich App 282, 284-285 ; 738 NW2d 264 (2007): According to the . . . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.