10 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Koon v. United Statesred2 sentences2022When the trial court selects one of these principled outcomes, the trial court has not abused its discretion and, thus, it is proper for the -2- reviewing court to defer to the trial court’s judgment.”) (citation omitted); Skinner, 502 Mich at 134-135 , quoting Gall v United States, 552 US 38, 41 ; 128 S Ct 586 ; 135 L Ed 2d 392 (1996) (“[C]ourts of appeals must review all sentences . . . under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”). 2018See *316 Koon v. United States , 518 U.S. 81 , 97, 116 S.Ct. 2035 , 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996) ("[I]t is not the role of an appellate court to substitute **135 its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence.") (quotation marks and citations omitted); Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38 , 41, 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) ("[C]ourts of appeals must review all sentences ... under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard."). | 2 | 3 |
Gall v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2022When the trial court selects one of these principled outcomes, the trial court has not abused its discretion and, thus, it is proper for the -2- reviewing court to defer to the trial court’s judgment.”) (citation omitted); Skinner, 502 Mich at 134-135 , quoting Gall v United States, 552 US 38, 41 ; 128 S Ct 586 ; 135 L Ed 2d 392 (1996) (“[C]ourts of appeals must review all sentences . . . under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”). 2022When the trial court selects one of these principled outcomes, the trial court has not abused its discretion and, thus, it is proper for the -2- reviewing court to defer to the trial court’s judgment.”) (citation omitted); Skinner, 502 Mich at 134-135 , quoting Gall v United States, 552 US 38, 41 ; 128 S Ct 586 ; 135 L Ed 2d 392 (1996) (“[C]ourts of appeals must review all sentences . . . under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Tategreen2 sentences2020See MCL 768.18 (“Should any condition arise during the trial of the cause which in the opinion of the trial court justifies the excusal of any of the jurors so impaneled from further service, he may do so and the trial shall proceed, unless the number of jurors be reduced to less than 12.”), People v Tate, 244 Mich App 553, 559 ; 624 NW2d 524 (2001), and People v Dry Land Marina, Inc, 175 Mich App 322, 327 ; 437 NW2d 391 (1989) (The decision to call an alternate juror is a “reasonable alternative” to a mistrial). 2020See MCL 768.18 (“Should any condition arise during the trial of the cause which in the opinion of the trial court justifies the excusal of any of the jurors so impaneled from further service, he may do so and the trial shall proceed, unless the number of jurors be reduced to less than 12.”), People v Tate, 244 Mich App 553, 559 ; 624 NW2d 524 (2001), and People v Dry Land Marina, Inc, 175 Mich App 322, 327 ; 437 NW2d 391 (1989) (The decision to call an alternate juror is a “reasonable alternative” to a mistrial). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robert James Jeffersongreen2 sentences2018See Gall , 552 U.S. at 49 , 128 S.Ct. 586 ; see also United States v. Jefferson , 816 F.3d 1016 , 1019 (C.A. 8, 2016) (applying Miller to a 600-month sentence and holding that "[w]e review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard"). 2018See Gall , 552 U.S. at 49 , 128 S.Ct. 586 ; see also United States v. Jefferson , 816 F.3d 1016 , 1019 (C.A. 8, 2016) (applying Miller to a 600-month sentence and holding that "[w]e review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard"). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Babcockgreen1 sentence2008Contrary to the majority's approach, Michigan lawlike federal lawrequires simply that a trial court "adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing." Gall, 552 U.S. at ___ , 128 S.Ct. at 597 ; see also Babcock at 259 n. 13, 666 N.W.2d 231 ("[H]owever it is articulated, the quality of the trial court's statement must be sufficient to allow for effective appellate review."). | 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. Mills
green
2 sentences2022While defendant is correct that several witnesses gave descriptions of the physical appearance of the term “mammy,” our Supreme Court has been clear that “[p]hotographs are not excludable simply because a witness can orally testify about the information contained in the photographs.” Mills, 450 Mich at 76 . 2022While defendant is correct that several witnesses gave descriptions of the physical appearance of the term “mammy,” our Supreme Court has been clear that “[p]hotographs are not excludable simply because a witness can orally testify about the information contained in the photographs.” Mills, 450 Mich at 76 . | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Woodington v. Shokoohi
green
1 sentence2024Woodington, 288 Mich App at 355 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re CONSERVATORSHIP OF BITTNER
green
2 sentences2024In re Conservatorship of Bittner, 312 Mich App 227 , 235- 236; 879 NW2d 269 (2015). 2024In re Conservatorship of Bittner, 312 Mich App 227 , 235- 236; 879 NW2d 269 (2015). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Skinner
green
1 sentence2022When the trial court selects one of these principled outcomes, the trial court has not abused its discretion and, thus, it is proper for the -2- reviewing court to defer to the trial court’s judgment.”) (citation omitted); Skinner, 502 Mich at 134-135 , quoting Gall v United States, 552 US 38, 41 ; 128 S Ct 586 ; 135 L Ed 2d 392 (1996) (“[C]ourts of appeals must review all sentences . . . under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Dry Land Marina, Inc
green
2 sentences2020See MCL 768.18 (“Should any condition arise during the trial of the cause which in the opinion of the trial court justifies the excusal of any of the jurors so impaneled from further service, he may do so and the trial shall proceed, unless the number of jurors be reduced to less than 12.”), People v Tate, 244 Mich App 553, 559 ; 624 NW2d 524 (2001), and People v Dry Land Marina, Inc, 175 Mich App 322, 327 ; 437 NW2d 391 (1989) (The decision to call an alternate juror is a “reasonable alternative” to a mistrial). 2020See MCL 768.18 (“Should any condition arise during the trial of the cause which in the opinion of the trial court justifies the excusal of any of the jurors so impaneled from further service, he may do so and the trial shall proceed, unless the number of jurors be reduced to less than 12.”), People v Tate, 244 Mich App 553, 559 ; 624 NW2d 524 (2001), and People v Dry Land Marina, Inc, 175 Mich App 322, 327 ; 437 NW2d 391 (1989) (The decision to call an alternate juror is a “reasonable alternative” to a mistrial). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Hyatt
green
2 sentences2018Although the Court of Appeals in Hyatt erred by adopting a heightened standard of review with regard to the trial court's ultimate decision to impose a sentence of life without parole, it did correctly hold that "[a]ny fact-finding by the trial court is to be reviewed for clear error" and that "any questions of law are to be reviewed de novo...." Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. at 423 , 891 N.W.2d 549 . 2018Although the Court of Appeals in Hyatt erred by adopting a heightened standard of review with regard to the trial court's ultimate decision to impose a sentence of life without parole, it did correctly hold that "[a]ny fact-finding by the trial court is to be reviewed for clear error" and that "any questions of law are to be reviewed de novo...." Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. at 423 , 891 N.W.2d 549 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
McAuley v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2003McAuley v Gen Motors Corp, 457 Mich 513, 518 ; 578 NW2d 282 (1998). 2003McAuley v Gen Motors Corp, 457 Mich 513, 518 ; 578 NW2d 282 (1998). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Spalding v. Spalding
green
2 sentences2002With respect to the appropriate standard of review, the dissent correctly sets forth the deferential abuse of discretion standard applicable when “the exercise of discretion turns upon a factual determination made by the trier of the facts,” specifically that under these circumstances an abuse of discretion occurs when “the result [is] so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or bias.” Spalding v Spalding, 355 Mich 382 2002With respect to the appropriate standard of review, the dissent correctly sets forth the deferential abuse of discretion standard applicable when “the exercise of discretion turns upon a factual determination made by the trier of the facts,” specifically that under these circumstances an abuse of discretion occurs when “the result [is] so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or bias.” Spalding v Spalding, 355 Mich 382 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.