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.
10 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ungergreen1 sentence2024Because “[c]urative instructions are sufficient to cure the prejudicial effect of most inappropriate prosecutorial statements and jurors are presumed to follow their instructions,” Unger, 278 Mich App at 235 (cleaned up), Lamb has not shown that he is entitled to relief on these grounds. | 1 | 1 |
People of Michigan v. David Joseph Millergreen1 sentence2019See Miller, 326 Mich App at 739 ; Payne, 285 Mich App at 195 . | 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. Milbourn
red
2 sentences2018In Steanhouse¸ this Court agreed that the principle of proportionality from People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), should apply to determine whether a departure sentence is reasonable. 2018In Steanhouse¸ this Court agreed that the principle of proportionality from People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), should apply to determine whether a departure sentence is reasonable. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Carpenter
green
2 sentences2026The trial court agreed with defense counsel, concluding that a “Brady[4] violation has occurred” and that the remedy is “to exclude the LYFT record response and to ask the jury to disregard any discussions or questioning wrongfulness of his or her conduct or [to] conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the law.’ ” People v Carpenter, 464 Mich 223, 230-231 ; 627 NW2d 276 (2001), quoting MCL 768.21a(1) (alteration added). 2026The trial court agreed with defense counsel, concluding that a “Brady[4] violation has occurred” and that the remedy is “to exclude the LYFT record response and to ask the jury to disregard any discussions or questioning wrongfulness of his or her conduct or [to] conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the law.’ ” People v Carpenter, 464 Mich 223, 230-231 ; 627 NW2d 276 (2001), quoting MCL 768.21a(1) (alteration added). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Payne
green
1 sentence2019See Miller, 326 Mich App at 739 ; Payne, 285 Mich App at 195 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
FMB-First Michigan Bank v. Bailey
green
1 sentence2014FMB-First Mich Bank, 232 Mich App at 725 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Anderson
red
2 sentences1987The trial court subsequently determined that such a hearing was precluded by People v Anderson, 389 Mich 155 ; 205 NW2d 461 (1973), because it should have been conducted prior to the introduction of the allegedly tainted testimony. 1987The trial court subsequently determined that such a hearing was precluded by People v Anderson, 389 Mich 155 ; 205 NW2d 461 (1973), because it should have been conducted prior to the introduction of the allegedly tainted testimony. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Foods, Inc. v. Iowa Civil Rights Commission
green
1 sentence1986The Iowa Supreme Court in Foods, supra, was asked to define the relationship of a statutory provision defining handicap as unrelated to the ability to do the job, and another provision requiring "accommodation to the . . . physical . . . limitations of an otherwise qualified handicapped applicant or employee unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its program.” 22 The court agreed with the hearing officer’s finding that the epileptic’s physical condition "was related in a small way to her ability to do her job . . . [but] de | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Hurst
green
2 sentences1981In People v Hurst, 396 Mich 1 ; 238 NW2d 6 (1976), the Court agreed that an instruction to the jury which suggested that consideration of a lesser offense could not begin if one juror held out for conviction of the offense charged is improper and should be avoided in the future. 1981In People v Hurst, 396 Mich 1 ; 238 NW2d 6 (1976), the Court agreed that an instruction to the jury which suggested that consideration of a lesser offense could not begin if one juror held out for conviction of the offense charged is improper and should be avoided in the future. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Summers
green
2 sentences1980People v Johnson, 83 Mich App 1 ; 268 NW2d 259 (1978), People v Summers, 73 Mich App 411 ; 251 NW2d 311 (1977), Harmon, supra. This split was recently resolved in People v Mays, 407 Mich 619, 621 ; 288 NW2d 207 (1980), where the trial judge gave the following instruction: "The first lesser included offense which you may consider, if you ñnd the defendant not guilty of ñrstdegree sexual conduct, you may consider whether the prosecutor has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree.” Defendant objected, and the Court agreed that the instruction 1980People v Johnson, 83 Mich App 1 ; 268 NW2d 259 (1978), People v Summers, 73 Mich App 411 ; 251 NW2d 311 (1977), Harmon, supra. This split was recently resolved in People v Mays, 407 Mich 619, 621 ; 288 NW2d 207 (1980), where the trial judge gave the following instruction: "The first lesser included offense which you may consider, if you ñnd the defendant not guilty of ñrstdegree sexual conduct, you may consider whether the prosecutor has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree.” Defendant objected, and the Court agreed that the instruction | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1980People v Johnson, 83 Mich App 1 ; 268 NW2d 259 (1978), People v Summers, 73 Mich App 411 ; 251 NW2d 311 (1977), Harmon, supra. This split was recently resolved in People v Mays, 407 Mich 619, 621 ; 288 NW2d 207 (1980), where the trial judge gave the following instruction: "The first lesser included offense which you may consider, if you ñnd the defendant not guilty of ñrstdegree sexual conduct, you may consider whether the prosecutor has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree.” Defendant objected, and the Court agreed that the instruction 1980People v Johnson, 83 Mich App 1 ; 268 NW2d 259 (1978), People v Summers, 73 Mich App 411 ; 251 NW2d 311 (1977), Harmon, supra. This split was recently resolved in People v Mays, 407 Mich 619, 621 ; 288 NW2d 207 (1980), where the trial judge gave the following instruction: "The first lesser included offense which you may consider, if you ñnd the defendant not guilty of ñrstdegree sexual conduct, you may consider whether the prosecutor has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree.” Defendant objected, and the Court agreed that the instruction | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Mays
green
2 sentences1980People v Johnson, 83 Mich App 1 ; 268 NW2d 259 (1978), People v Summers, 73 Mich App 411 ; 251 NW2d 311 (1977), Harmon, supra. This split was recently resolved in People v Mays, 407 Mich 619, 621 ; 288 NW2d 207 (1980), where the trial judge gave the following instruction: "The first lesser included offense which you may consider, if you ñnd the defendant not guilty of ñrstdegree sexual conduct, you may consider whether the prosecutor has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree.” Defendant objected, and the Court agreed that the instruction 1980People v Johnson, 83 Mich App 1 ; 268 NW2d 259 (1978), People v Summers, 73 Mich App 411 ; 251 NW2d 311 (1977), Harmon, supra. This split was recently resolved in People v Mays, 407 Mich 619, 621 ; 288 NW2d 207 (1980), where the trial judge gave the following instruction: "The first lesser included offense which you may consider, if you ñnd the defendant not guilty of ñrstdegree sexual conduct, you may consider whether the prosecutor has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree.” Defendant objected, and the Court agreed that the instruction | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.