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 1 courts 2017–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Miller
green
2 sentences2026As explained in Miller: Under the abstract legal elements test, it is not a violation of double jeopardy to convict a defendant of multiple offenses if “each of the offenses for which defendant was convicted has an element that the other does not . . . .” [Ream, 481 Mich at 225-226 .] This means that, under the Ream test, two offenses will only be considered the “same offense” where it is impossible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense. [Id. at 241.] [Miller, 498 Mich at 19 .] In Ream, the Court also clarified that, in line with Blockburger, the focus must b 2026As explained in Miller: Under the abstract legal elements test, it is not a violation of double jeopardy to convict a defendant of multiple offenses if “each of the offenses for which defendant was convicted has an element that the other does not . . . .” [Ream, 481 Mich at 225-226 .] This means that, under the Ream test, two offenses will only be considered the “same offense” where it is impossible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense. [Id. at 241.] [Miller, 498 Mich at 19 .] In Ream, the Court also clarified that, in line with Blockburger, the focus must b | 5 | 2019–2026 |
People v. Ream
green
2 sentences2026As explained in Miller: Under the abstract legal elements test, it is not a violation of double jeopardy to convict a defendant of multiple offenses if “each of the offenses for which defendant was convicted has an element that the other does not . . . .” [Ream, 481 Mich at 225-226 .] This means that, under the Ream test, two offenses will only be considered the “same offense” where it is impossible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense. [Id. at 241.] [Miller, 498 Mich at 19 .] In Ream, the Court also clarified that, in line with Blockburger, the focus must b 2026As explained in Miller: Under the abstract legal elements test, it is not a violation of double jeopardy to convict a defendant of multiple offenses if “each of the offenses for which defendant was convicted has an element that the other does not . . . .” [Ream, 481 Mich at 225-226 .] This means that, under the Ream test, two offenses will only be considered the “same offense” where it is impossible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense. [Id. at 241.] [Miller, 498 Mich at 19 .] In Ream, the Court also clarified that, in line with Blockburger, the focus must b | 3 | 2019–2026 |
People v. Franklin
green
2 sentences2026“The appropriate remedy for multiple punishments in violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy is to vacate the lower charge and affirm the higher conviction.” People v Franklin, 298 Mich App 539, 546 ; 828 NW2d 61 (2012). 2026“The appropriate remedy for multiple punishments in violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy is to vacate the lower charge and affirm the higher conviction.” People v Franklin, 298 Mich App 539, 546 ; 828 NW2d 61 (2012). | 2 | 2025–2026 |
People v. Ackah-Essien
green
2 sentences2022People v Ackah-Essien, 311 Mich App 13, 30 ; 874 NW2d 172 (2015). -5- offense” where it is impossible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense. 2022People v Ackah-Essien, 311 Mich App 13, 30 ; 874 NW2d 172 (2015). -5- offense” where it is impossible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Collins
green
2 sentences2017This means that, under the Ream test, two offenses will only be considered the same offense where it is impossible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense. [Id. (quotation marks and footnotes omitted).] The elements of delivery of less than 50 grams of heroin are “(1) defendant’s delivery; (2) of [less than 50 grams]; (3) of heroin or a mixture containing heroin; (4) with knowledge that he was delivering heroin.” People v Collins, 298 Mich App 458, 462 ; 828 NW2d 392 (2012) (setting forth the elements for delivery of heroin in an amount between 50 and 540 grams 2017This means that, under the Ream test, two offenses will only be considered the same offense where it is impossible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense. [Id. (quotation marks and footnotes omitted).] The elements of delivery of less than 50 grams of heroin are “(1) defendant’s delivery; (2) of [less than 50 grams]; (3) of heroin or a mixture containing heroin; (4) with knowledge that he was delivering heroin.” People v Collins, 298 Mich App 458, 462 ; 828 NW2d 392 (2012) (setting forth the elements for delivery of heroin in an amount between 50 and 540 grams | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Smith
green
2 sentences2021To convict a defendant of second-degree murder, the prosecution must establish the following elements: “(1) a death, (2) the death was caused by an act of the defendant, (3) the defendant acted with malice, and (4) the defendant did not have lawful justification or excuse for -4- causing the death.” People v Smith, 478 Mich 64, 70 ; 731 NW2d 411 (2007). 2021To convict a defendant of second-degree murder, the prosecution must establish the following elements: “(1) a death, (2) the death was caused by an act of the defendant, (3) the defendant acted with malice, and (4) the defendant did not have lawful justification or excuse for -4- causing the death.” People v Smith, 478 Mich 64, 70 ; 731 NW2d 411 (2007). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.