abuse of discretion standard in Michigan

2026“An abuse-of-discretion standard recognizes that there may be more than one principled outcome and the trial court may not deviate from that principled range of outcomes.” Id., citing People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 269 ; 666 NW2d 231 (2003).

2026“An abuse-of-discretion standard recognizes that there may be more than one principled outcome and the trial court may not deviate from that principled range of outcomes.” Id., citing People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 269 ; 666 NW2d 231 (2003).

2025While plaintiff argues the trial court abused its discretion by ordering attorney fees and costs under the facts of this case, our Supreme Court has “stated that an abuse of discretion standard acknowledges that there will be circumstances in which there will be no single correct outcome; rather, there will be more than one reasonable and principled outcome.” Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388 ; 719 NW2d 809 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025While plaintiff argues the trial court abused its discretion by ordering attorney fees and costs under the facts of this case, our Supreme Court has “stated that an abuse of discretion standard acknowledges that there will be circumstances in which there will be no single correct outcome; rather, there will be more than one reasonable and principled outcome.” Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388 ; 719 NW2d 809 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025“An abuse of discretion standard applies to the trial court’s discretionary rulings such as custody decisions.” Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 507-508 .

2025“An abuse of discretion standard is applied to a trial court’s discretionary rulings such as custody decisions.” Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 507 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2022“Judicial review of the Board’s decision to grant parole is limited to the abuse-of-discretion standard.” In re Parole of Elias, 294 Mich App 507, 538 ; 811 NW2d 541 (2011). [T]he challenging party has the burden to show either that the Board’s decision was “a clear abuse of discretion” or was “in violation of the Michigan Constitution, a statute, an administrative rule, or a written agency regulation.” An abuse of discretion occurs when the . . . court’s decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.

2022“Judicial review of the Board’s decision to grant parole is limited to the abuse-of-discretion standard.” In re Parole of Elias, 294 Mich App 507, 538 ; 811 NW2d 541 (2011). [T]he challenging party has the burden to show either that the Board’s decision was “a clear abuse of discretion” or was “in violation of the Michigan Constitution, a statute, an administrative rule, or a written agency regulation.” An abuse of discretion occurs when the . . . court’s decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.

2013This Court also vacated as dicta portions of the Court of Appeals’ judgment and the trial court’s opinion discussing application of the Confrontation Clause. 20 People v Gursky, 486 Mich 596, 606 ; 786 NW2d 579 (2010). 21 People v Blackston, 481 Mich 451, 460, 467 ; 751 NW2d 408 (2008). 22 People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 488 ; 596 NW2d 607 (1999). 23 People v Barrett, 480 Mich 125, 130 ; 747 NW2d 797 (2008). 24 People v Waterstone, 296 Mich App 121, 132 ; 818 NW2d 432 (2012); accord Koon v United States, 518 US 81, 100 ; 116 S Ct 2035 ; 135 L Ed 2d 392 (1996) (“The abuse-of- discretion standard

2013This Court also vacated as dicta portions of the Court of Appeals’ judgment and the trial court’s opinion discussing application of the Confrontation Clause. 20 People v Gursky, 486 Mich 596, 606 ; 786 NW2d 579 (2010). 21 People v Blackston, 481 Mich 451, 460, 467 ; 751 NW2d 408 (2008). 22 People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 488 ; 596 NW2d 607 (1999). 23 People v Barrett, 480 Mich 125, 130 ; 747 NW2d 797 (2008). 24 People v Waterstone, 296 Mich App 121, 132 ; 818 NW2d 432 (2012); accord Koon v United States, 518 US 81, 100 ; 116 S Ct 2035 ; 135 L Ed 2d 392 (1996) (“The abuse-of- discretion standard

2018II As directed by the Supreme Court, we consider whether Schwander’s departure sentence was reasonable under the proportionality standard articulated in Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636 , applying an abuse of discretion standard of review.

2018II As directed by the Supreme Court, we consider whether Schwander’s departure sentence was reasonable under the proportionality standard articulated in Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636 , applying an abuse of discretion standard of review.

2019Under the clear error standard, this Court defers to the trial court unless definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court made a mistake, and under the abuse of discretion standard, this Court “cannot disturb the trial court’s decision unless it falls outside the principled range of outcomes.” Id. at 472 .

2019Under the clear error standard, this Court defers to the lower court unless definitely and firmly convinced that the court made a mistake; and under the abuse of discretion standard, we will affirm unless the “decision . . . falls outside the principled range of outcomes.” Id. at 472 .

2023This Court, therefore, reviews the record and the trial court’s decisions related to its findings to determine whether the outcome is “so contrary to the great weight of the evidence as to disclose an unwarranted finding, or whether the verdict is so plainly a miscarriage of justice as to call for a new trial.” Id. at 878 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 Although the Spalding formulation of the abuse-of-discretion standard was largely abrogated by Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 387 ; 719 NW2d 809 (2006), it is still applicable to child custody determinations.

2023Shulick v Richards, 273 Mich App 320, 325 ; 729 NW2d 533 (2006); see also Fletcher, 447 Mich at 880-881 . -6- The best interests of the children involved govern decisions related to custody issues, including parenting time.

2016The Supreme Court in Gall explicitly recognized that “the familiar abuse-of-discretion standard of review now applies to appellate review of sentencing decisions.” 552 US at 46 .

2015The Supreme Court later expounded, “Our explanation of ‘reasonableness’ review in the Booker opinion made it pellucidly clear that the familiar abuse-of-discretion standard of review now applies to appellate review of sentencing decisions.” Id.

2011Wayne Co Prosecutor v Parole Bd, 210 Mich App 148, 153 ; 532 NW2d 899 (1995).

2011Wayne Co Prosecutor v Parole Bd, 210 Mich App 148, 153 ; 532 NW2d 899 (1995).

1996If the Court were to adopt my suggestion in People v. Talley, 410 Mich. 378, 399-400 , 301 N.W.2d 809 (1981) (LEVIN, J., concurring), that Justice Sutherland's articulation of the abuse of discretion standard in Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 541 , 51 S.Ct. 243, 247 , 75 L.Ed. 520 (1931), should be adopted in lieu of the Spalding formulation, it still could not properly be said that the probate court's thorough and thoughtful opinion failed to evidence "a discretion exercised not arbitrarily or willfully, but with regard to what is right and equitable under the circumstances and the law, and

1996If the Court were to adopt my suggestion in People v. Talley, 410 Mich. 378, 399-400 , 301 N.W.2d 809 (1981) (LEVIN, J., concurring), that Justice Sutherland's articulation of the abuse of discretion standard in Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 541 , 51 S.Ct. 243, 247 , 75 L.Ed. 520 (1931), should be adopted in lieu of the Spalding formulation, it still could not properly be said that the probate court's thorough and thoughtful opinion failed to evidence "a discretion exercised not arbitrarily or willfully, but with regard to what is right and equitable under the circumstances and the law, and

2020In part, this is because it is difficult, after the jury has rendered a verdict, to clearly gauge the prejudicial effect that an unexcused juror’s presence might have had during 2 Spalding v Spalding, 355 Mich 382 ; 94 NW2d 810 (1959), rejected in part by Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388 (2006) (“we prefer the articulation of the abuse of discretion standard in [People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 ; 666 NW2d 231 (2003)] to the Spalding test and, thus, adopt it as the default abuse of discretion standard.”). -8- deliberations.

2020In part, this is because it is difficult, after the jury has rendered a verdict, to clearly gauge the prejudicial effect that an unexcused juror’s presence might have had during 2 Spalding v Spalding, 355 Mich 382 ; 94 NW2d 810 (1959), rejected in part by Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388 (2006) (“we prefer the articulation of the abuse of discretion standard in [People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 ; 666 NW2d 231 (2003)] to the Spalding test and, thus, adopt it as the default abuse of discretion standard.”). -8- deliberations.

2023In those cases, a grant of parole would be an abuse of discretion, and a reviewing court should reverse the Parole Board. 32 But when it would be a reasonable and principled outcome not to depart from the guidelines, the Parole Board does not abuse its discretion by declining to do so. 28 MCR 7.118(H)(3)(b). 29 See Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388 ; 719 NW2d 809 (2006). 30 See People v Skinner, 502 Mich 89, 136 ; 917 NW2d 292 (2018) (noting that the abuse- of-discretion standard is “ ‘deferential’ ”) (citation omitted).

2023In those cases, a grant of parole would be an abuse of discretion, and a reviewing court should reverse the Parole Board. 32 But when it would be a reasonable and principled outcome not to depart from the guidelines, the Parole Board does not abuse its discretion by declining to do so. 28 MCR 7.118(H)(3)(b). 29 See Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388 ; 719 NW2d 809 (2006). 30 See People v Skinner, 502 Mich 89, 136 ; 917 NW2d 292 (2018) (noting that the abuse- of-discretion standard is “ ‘deferential’ ”) (citation omitted).

2025“Appellate review of a magistrate’s determination whether probable cause exists to support a search warrant involves neither de novo review nor application of an abuse of discretion standard.” People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 243 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025“Appellate review of a magistrate’s determination whether probable cause exists to support a search warrant involves neither de novo review nor application of an abuse of discretion standard.” People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 243 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2022The Court explained that the sentencing guidelines are advisory only as prescribed by People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392 ; 870 NW2d 502 (2015) (“Sentencing courts must . . . continue to consult the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence . . . [and] justify the sentence imposed in order to facilitate appellate review.”) The Court confirmed that this Court must apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a sentence for reasonableness.

2022The Court explained that the sentencing guidelines are advisory only as prescribed by People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392 ; 870 NW2d 502 (2015) (“Sentencing courts must . . . continue to consult the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence . . . [and] justify the sentence imposed in order to facilitate appellate review.”) The Court confirmed that this Court must apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a sentence for reasonableness.

2024This is not to say that the -10- court would have necessarily erred had it decided to manage this rather unusual and challenging situation differently; “[a]t its core, an abuse of discretion standard acknowledges that there will be circumstances in which there will be no single correct outcome[.]” Id. at 189 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024“At its core, an abuse of discretion standard acknowledges that there will be circumstances in which there will be no single correct outcome; rather, there will be more than one reasonable and principled outcome.” People v Anderson, 501 Mich 175, 189 ; 912 NW2d 503 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted).