10 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
James v. Strangegreen2 sentences2017See James, 407 US at 141-142 . 2017See James, 407 US at 141-142 . | 3 | 3 |
People v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2017This is usually accomplished by a remittance order, which also does not require an ability-to-pay analysis.” Jackson, 483 Mich at 286 . 2017This is usually accomplished by a remittance order, which also does not require an ability-to-pay analysis.” Jackson, 483 Mich at 286 . | 2 | 7 |
Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Governorgreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., MCL 552.23(1). 63 See, e.g., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich v Governor, 422 Mich 1, 89 ; 367 NW2d 1 (1985) (“It is generally well established that issues of fact in civil cases are to be determined in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence . . . .”) (citations omitted). 64 See 2008 MCSF 2.01(G). 28 But it is axiomatic that all elements of a criminal charge must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.65 The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard used in civil courts affords less protection than the constitutionally guaranteed beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of proof used i 2012See, e.g., MCL 552.23(1). 63 See, e.g., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich v Governor, 422 Mich 1, 89 ; 367 NW2d 1 (1985) (“It is generally well established that issues of fact in civil cases are to be determined in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence . . . .”) (citations omitted). 64 See 2008 MCSF 2.01(G). 28 But it is axiomatic that all elements of a criminal charge must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.65 The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard used in civil courts affords less protection than the constitutionally guaranteed beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of proof used i | 1 | 1 |
Wendel v. Attorney Grievance Commissiongreen1 sentence2009See People v Trapp, 482 Mich 1044 (2008) (denying leave to appeal). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dewey v. Tabor
green
1 sentence2021If a factual dispute exists, however, summary disposition is not appropriate. [Citations omitted.] Although not argued by the parties, we conclude sua sponte that the trial court erred by applying the ability-to-pay analysis from Dewey, 226 Mich App 189 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Armisted
green
1 sentence2016MCR 6.310(D); Armisted, 295 Mich App at 48 .3 Defendant also argues that pursuant to People v Jackson, 483 Mich 271 ; 769 NW2d 630 (2009), he has a constitutional right to an ability-to-pay hearing before the trial court can enforce its order mandating repayment of attorney fees. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hicks Ex Rel. Feiock v. Feiock
green
2 sentences2012The United States Supreme Court has also recognized “the fundamental proposition that criminal penalties may not be imposed on someone who has not been afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of such criminal proceedings . . . .” Hicks ex rel Feiock v Feiock, 485 US 624, 632 ; 108 S Ct 1423 ; 99 L Ed 2d 721 (1988). 62 It also creates enormous confusion to institute an impossibility-to-pay defense in a criminal proceeding, when, in the related civil action, the family court used an ability-to- pay standard. 2012The United States Supreme Court has also recognized “the fundamental proposition that criminal penalties may not be imposed on someone who has not been afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of such criminal proceedings . . . .” Hicks ex rel Feiock v Feiock, 485 US 624, 632 ; 108 S Ct 1423 ; 99 L Ed 2d 721 (1988). 62 It also creates enormous confusion to institute an impossibility-to-pay defense in a criminal proceeding, when, in the related civil action, the family court used an ability-to- pay standard. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Grant
green
2 sentences2009“However, [in any context,] the court does need to provide some indication of consideration, such as noting that it reviewed the financial and employment sections of the defendant’s presentence investigation report or, even more generally, a statement that it considered the defendant’s ability to pay.” Id. at 254-255 , citing People v Grant, 455 Mich 221, 242 , 243 n 30; 565 NW2d 389 (1997). 2009“However, [in any context,] the court does need to provide some indication of consideration, such as noting that it reviewed the financial and employment sections of the defendant’s presentence investigation report or, even more generally, a statement that it considered the defendant’s ability to pay.” Id. at 254-255 , citing People v Grant, 455 Mich 221, 242 , 243 n 30; 565 NW2d 389 (1997). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Dunbar
green
2 sentences2009Dunbar also held that the ability-to-pay inquiry does not require the trial court to make “a specific finding on the record regarding [the defendant’s] ability to pay,” “unless the defendant specifically objects to the reimbursement amount at the time it is ordered . . . .” Id. at 254 . 2009“However, [in any context,] the court does need to provide some indication of consideration, such as noting that it reviewed the financial and employment sections of the defendant’s presentence investigation report or, even more generally, a statement that it considered the defendant’s ability to pay.” Id. at 254-255 , citing People v Grant, 455 Mich 221, 242 , 243 n 30; 565 NW2d 389 (1997). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Music
green
2 sentences2009This is supported by our reasoning in People v Music, 428 Mich 356 ; 408 NW2d 795 (1987). 2009This is supported by our reasoning in People v Music, 428 Mich 356 ; 408 NW2d 795 (1987). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.