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 1992–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Solomon v. Shuellgreen2 sentences2023There is an “inherent trustworthiness of documents prepared by a public official in carrying out his duties which justifies the public records exception[.]” Solomon v Shuell, 435 Mich 104, 132 ; 457 NW2d 669 (1990). 2023There is an “inherent trustworthiness of documents prepared by a public official in carrying out his duties which justifies the public records exception[.]” Solomon v Shuell, 435 Mich 104, 132 ; 457 NW2d 669 (1990). | 2 | 3 |
Abdul Nahshal v. Fremont Insurance Companygreen1 sentence2023See id; see also Nahshal, 324 Mich App at 709-710 ; Reed, 265 Mich App at 160 . | 1 | 1 |
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences1992We are persuaded that the public records exception to the hearsay rule is among the "safest” of such exceptions in terms of reliability, Ohio v Roberts, 448 US 56, 67, n 8 ; 100 S Ct 2531 ; 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980), and that it is therefore "firmly rooted,” id. at 66 , such that no independent inquiry into reliability is required for confrontation clause purposes when MRE 803(8) is satisfied. 1992We are persuaded that the public records exception to the hearsay rule is among the "safest” of such exceptions in terms of reliability, Ohio v Roberts, 448 US 56, 67, n 8 ; 100 S Ct 2531 ; 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980), and that it is therefore "firmly rooted,” id. at 66 , such that no independent inquiry into reliability is required for confrontation clause purposes when MRE 803(8) is satisfied. | 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. McDaniel
green
2 sentences2006The Court also considered MRE 803(8), the public records exception exempting from exclusion public records and reports, but specifically excluding “in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel. . . .” The Court referred to this Court’s opinion in People v Stacy, 193 Mich App 19 ; 484 NW2d 675 (1992), noting that decision’s holding “that the exclusion of hearsay observations by police officers was intended to apply only to observations made at the scene of the crime or while investigating a crime.” McDaniel, supra at 413 . 2006The Court also considered MRE 803(8), the public records exception exempting from exclusion public records and reports, but specifically excluding "in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel. . . ." The Court referred to this Court's opinion in People v. Stacy, 193 Mich.App. 19 , 484 N.W.2d 675 (1992), noting that decision's holding "that the exclusion of hearsay observations by police officers was intended to apply only to observations made at the scene of the crime or while investigating a crime." McDaniel, supra at 413 , 670 N.W.2d 659 . | 4 | 2005–2007 |
People v. Stacy
green
2 sentences2006The Court also considered MRE 803(8), the public records exception exempting from exclusion public records and reports, but specifically excluding “in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel. . . .” The Court referred to this Court’s opinion in People v Stacy, 193 Mich App 19 ; 484 NW2d 675 (1992), noting that decision’s holding “that the exclusion of hearsay observations by police officers was intended to apply only to observations made at the scene of the crime or while investigating a crime.” McDaniel, supra at 413 . 2006The Court also considered MRE 803(8), the public records exception exempting from exclusion public records and reports, but specifically excluding “in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel. . . .” The Court referred to this Court’s opinion in People v Stacy, 193 Mich App 19 ; 484 NW2d 675 (1992), noting that decision’s holding “that the exclusion of hearsay observations by police officers was intended to apply only to observations made at the scene of the crime or while investigating a crime.” McDaniel, supra at 413 . | 3 | 2006–2007 |
People v. Jambor
green
2 sentences2025The prosecutor argues that the citation was admissible under MRE 803(8), the public-records exception to the hearsay rule.2 This “public records exception has been construed to allow admission of routine police reports made in a nonadversarial setting, notwithstanding the literal language of the rule.” People v Jambor, 273 Mich App 477, 484-485 ; 729 NW2d 569 (2007). 2025The prosecutor argues that the citation was admissible under MRE 803(8), the public-records exception to the hearsay rule.2 This “public records exception has been construed to allow admission of routine police reports made in a nonadversarial setting, notwithstanding the literal language of the rule.” People v Jambor, 273 Mich App 477, 484-485 ; 729 NW2d 569 (2007). | 2 | 2024–2025 |
People v. Tanner
green
2 sentences2017See Solomon v Shuell, 435 Mich 104, 128-133 ; 457 NW2d 669 (1990) (opinion of ARCHER, J.); Tanner, 222 Mich App at 630 . 2017See Solomon v Shuell, 435 Mich 104, 128-133 ; 457 NW2d 669 (1990) (opinion of ARCHER, J.); Tanner, 222 Mich App at 630 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Reed v. Reed
green
1 sentence2023See id; see also Nahshal, 324 Mich App at 709-710 ; Reed, 265 Mich App at 160 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Hernandez
neutral
2 sentences2007The present case is distinguishable from People v. Hernandez, 7 Misc.3d 568 , 794 N.Y.S.2d 788 (2005), on which defendant relies for the proposition that admission of fingerprint cards is precluded under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. 2007The present case is distinguishable from People v Hernandez, 7 Misc 3d 568 ; 794 NYS2d 788 (2005), on which defendant relies for the proposition that admission of fingerprint cards is precluded under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.