list factors in Michigan

2026In evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the reviewing court should inquire into a variety of factors including, but not limited to, the nature of the trial judge’s conduct, the tone and demeanor of the judge, the scope of the judicial conduct in the context of the length and complexity of the trial and issues therein, the extent to which the judge’s conduct was directed at one side more than the other, and the presence of any curative instructions, either at the time of an inappropriate occur- rence or at the end of trial. [Stevens, 498 Mich at 164 .] The list of factors articulated i

2026In evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the reviewing court should inquire into a variety of factors including, but not limited to, the nature of the trial judge’s conduct, the tone and demeanor of the judge, the scope of the judicial conduct in the context of the length and complexity of the trial and issues therein, the extent to which the judge’s conduct was directed at one side more than the other, and the presence of any curative instructions, either at the time of an inappropriate occur- rence or at the end of trial. [Stevens, 498 Mich at 164 .] The list of factors articulated i

2022In Sparks, 440 Mich at 159-160 , our Supreme Court provided the following list of factors “to be considered wherever they are relevant to the circumstances of the particular case:” (1) duration of the marriage, (2) contributions of the parties to the marital estate, (3) age of the parties, (4) health of the parties, (5) life status of the parties, (6) necessities and circumstances of the parties, (7) earning abilities of the parties, (8) past relations and conduct of the parties, and (9) general principles of equity.

2021Our Supreme Court has -2- provided a list of factors “to be considered wherever they are relevant to the circumstances of the particular case,” including the (1) duration of the marriage, (2) contributions of the parties to the marital estate, (3) age of the parties, (4) health of the parties, (5) life status of the parties, (6) necessities and circumstances of the parties, (7) earning abilities of the parties, (8) past relations and conduct of the parties, and (9) general principles of equity. [Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 159-160 ; 485 NW2d 893 (1992).] “When dividing marital property, a t

2018“And, as a corollary to that, there is no Michigan statute or caselaw that precludes outright a substantial deviation from numerical equality in a property distribution award.” Washington, 283 Mich App at 673 .

2018“And, as a corollary to that, there is no Michigan statute or caselaw that precludes outright a substantial deviation from numerical equality in a property distribution award.” Washington, 283 Mich App at 673 .

2024Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the order granting dismissal with prejudice, arguing the trial court erred by failing to consider the list of factors delineated in Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995), quoting Dean v Tucker, 182 Mich App 27, 32-33 ; 451 NW2d 571 (1990), and without evaluating whether it would be in the interests of justice to impose a lesser sanction.

2024Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the order granting dismissal with prejudice, arguing the trial court erred by failing to consider the list of factors delineated in Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995), quoting Dean v Tucker, 182 Mich App 27, 32-33 ; 451 NW2d 571 (1990), and without evaluating whether it would be in the interests of justice to impose a lesser sanction.

2021No single factor is controlling and, indeed, the list of factors is nonexclusive and other factors may be considered as each individual case requires.” Rakowski v Sarb, 269 Mich App 619, 625 ; 713 NW2d 787 (2006) -4- (citation omitted).

2021No single factor is controlling and, indeed, the list of factors is nonexclusive and other factors may be considered as each individual case requires.” Rakowski v Sarb, 269 Mich App 619, 625 ; 713 NW2d 787 (2006) -4- (citation omitted).

2025This Court has provided a list of factors the trial court can consider when examining whether “good cause” has been demonstrated: (1) whether the party completely failed to respond or simply missed the deadline to file; (2) if the party simply missed the deadline to file, how long after the deadline the filing occurred; (3) the duration between entry of the default judgment and the filing of the motion to set aside the judgment; -4- (4) whether there was defective process or notice; (5) the circumstances behind the failure to file or file timely; (6) whether the failure was knowing or intentio

2016Id.

2020In a somewhat analogous context, our Supreme Court has established a list of factors for trial courts to consider when determining the reasonableness of attorney fees: (1) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services, (2) the difficulty of the case, i.e., the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to performing the legal service properly, (3) the amount in question and the results obtained, (4) the expenses incurred, (5) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, (6) the likelihood, if a

2020In a somewhat analogous context, our Supreme Court has established a list of factors for trial courts to consider when determining the reasonableness of attorney fees: (1) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services, (2) the difficulty of the case, i.e., the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to performing the legal service properly, (3) the amount in question and the results obtained, (4) the expenses incurred, (5) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, (6) the likelihood, if a

2017Barr v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co, 292 Mich App 456, 458 ; 806 NW2d 531 (2011).

2017Barr v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co, 292 Mich App 456, 458 ; 806 NW2d 531 (2011).

2017Richards, 310 Mich App at 694 .

2017Richards, 310 Mich App at 694 .

2008The language of this requested instruction was lifted word-for-word from our Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109, 133-134 ; 683 NW2d 611 (2004).

2008The language of this requested instruction was lifted word-for-word from our Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109, 133-134 ; 683 NW2d 611 (2004).

2002In re SLL, supra at 208-209 ; Givans, supra; Mendez, supra. In Givans, supra at 121 , this Court provided a list of factors to be considered in determining whether a juvenile’s statement is voluntary: The factors that must be considered in applying the totality of the circumstances test to determine the admissibility of a juvenile’s confession include (1) whether the requirements of Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), have been met and the defendant clearly understands and waives those rights, (2) the degree of police compliance with MCL 764.27; MSA 28.886 and

2002In re SLL, supra at 208-209 ; Givans, supra; Mendez, supra. In Givans, supra at 121 , this Court provided a list of factors to be considered in determining whether a juvenile’s statement is voluntary: The factors that must be considered in applying the totality of the circumstances test to determine the admissibility of a juvenile’s confession include (1) whether the requirements of Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), have been met and the defendant clearly understands and waives those rights, (2) the degree of police compliance with MCL 764.27; MSA 28.886 and

2026In McKissic, 42 Mich App at 201 , this Court used eight factors to determine the nature of an employment relationship in the context of a worker’s compensation case: First, what liability, if any, does the employer incur in the event of the termination of the relationship at will?

2025Defendant also urges this Court to adopt the list of factors from United States v Ross, 33 F3d 1507 (CA 11, 1994), in determining whether the jury requires protection before impaneling an anonymous jury.

2025Our Supreme Court provided a list of factors to consider when balancing the probative and prejudicial effects of evidence, stating: The weighing of evidence’s probative value against its prejudicial effect requires a balancing of several factors, including the necessary time to present the evidence, whether the evidence is needlessly cumulative, how directly probative the evidence is, how necessary the fact to be proven by the evidence is, whether the evidence would mislead the jury, and whether there is an alternative and less potentially harmful way to prove the fact. [People v Sharpe, 502 M

2025Our Supreme Court provided a list of factors to consider when balancing the probative and prejudicial effects of evidence, stating: The weighing of evidence’s probative value against its prejudicial effect requires a balancing of several factors, including the necessary time to present the evidence, whether the evidence is needlessly cumulative, how directly probative the evidence is, how necessary the fact to be proven by the evidence is, whether the evidence would mislead the jury, and whether there is an alternative and less potentially harmful way to prove the fact. [People v Sharpe, 502 M

2024Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the order granting dismissal with prejudice, arguing the trial court erred by failing to consider the list of factors delineated in Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995), quoting Dean v Tucker, 182 Mich App 27, 32-33 ; 451 NW2d 571 (1990), and without evaluating whether it would be in the interests of justice to impose a lesser sanction.

2024Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the order granting dismissal with prejudice, arguing the trial court erred by failing to consider the list of factors delineated in Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995), quoting Dean v Tucker, 182 Mich App 27, 32-33 ; 451 NW2d 571 (1990), and without evaluating whether it would be in the interests of justice to impose a lesser sanction.

2024In Woodring v Phoenix Ins Co, 325 Mich App 108, 114-115 ; 923 NW2d 607 (2018), this Court stated that, although we are not required to follow opinions from this Court decided before November 1, 1990, “they are nevertheless considered to be precedent and entitled to significantly greater deference than are unpublished cases.” 2 “While we have routinely cited these four general factors, we have also recognized that [n]o single factor is controlling and, indeed, the list of factors is nonexclusive and other factors may be -3- First, what liability, if any, does the employer incur in the event of

2024In Woodring v Phoenix Ins Co, 325 Mich App 108, 114-115 ; 923 NW2d 607 (2018), this Court stated that, although we are not required to follow opinions from this Court decided before November 1, 1990, “they are nevertheless considered to be precedent and entitled to significantly greater deference than are unpublished cases.” 2 “While we have routinely cited these four general factors, we have also recognized that [n]o single factor is controlling and, indeed, the list of factors is nonexclusive and other factors may be -3- First, what liability, if any, does the employer incur in the event of

2024Although the Daubert gatekeeping function applies to all experts, the list of factors in Daubert is flexible and nonexhaustive: “Daubert’s list of specific factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every case.” Id.

2024Although Workman and Dairyland offered a list of factors that can be considered, none of those factors is dispositive, Workman, 404 Mich at 496-497 , Dairyland, 123 Mich App at 682 , and “[a]ll relevant factors must be considered . . . .” Dairyland, 123 Mich App at 681 .

2024Although Workman and Dairyland offered a list of factors that can be considered, none of those factors is dispositive, Workman, 404 Mich at 496-497 , Dairyland, 123 Mich App at 682 , and “[a]ll relevant factors must be considered . . . .” Dairyland, 123 Mich App at 681 .

2024Although Workman and Dairyland offered a list of factors that can be considered, none of those factors is dispositive, Workman, 404 Mich at 496-497 , Dairyland, 123 Mich App at 682 , and “[a]ll relevant factors must be considered . . . .” Dairyland, 123 Mich App at 681 .

2023See, e.g., In re Hudson, 481 Mich 928 ; 763 NW2d 618 (2009). -5- deadline; if the party simply missed the deadline, how long afterward the party filed; how long the movant took to move to set aside the default; it should examine whether there was defective process or notice; it should consider the circumstances behind the failure to file or timely file;whether the failure was knowing or intentional; the size of the judgment, and whether the judgment results in ongoing liability, and whether the internal policies of the insurer were followed, if the defaulting party was an insurer.

2022MCL 600.2955(1) provides that “[i]n an action for the death of a person . . . , a scientific opinion rendered by an otherwise qualified expert is not admissible unless the court determines that the opinion is reliable and will assist the trier of fact.” In making this determination, the court “shall examine the opinion and the basis for the opinion, which basis includes the facts, technique, methodology, and reasoning relied on by the expert,” id., and the statute provides a list of factors the court must consider, MCL 600.2955(1)(a)-(g).

2021Our Supreme Court has -2- provided a list of factors “to be considered wherever they are relevant to the circumstances of the particular case,” including the (1) duration of the marriage, (2) contributions of the parties to the marital estate, (3) age of the parties, (4) health of the parties, (5) life status of the parties, (6) necessities and circumstances of the parties, (7) earning abilities of the parties, (8) past relations and conduct of the parties, and (9) general principles of equity. [Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 159-160 ; 485 NW2d 893 (1992).] “When dividing marital property, a t

2021Our Supreme Court has -2- provided a list of factors “to be considered wherever they are relevant to the circumstances of the particular case,” including the (1) duration of the marriage, (2) contributions of the parties to the marital estate, (3) age of the parties, (4) health of the parties, (5) life status of the parties, (6) necessities and circumstances of the parties, (7) earning abilities of the parties, (8) past relations and conduct of the parties, and (9) general principles of equity. [Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 159-160 ; 485 NW2d 893 (1992).] “When dividing marital property, a t

2020Further, a prisoner shall not be given liberty on parole until the board has reasonable assurance, after consideration of all of the facts and circumstances, including the prisoner’s mental and social attitude, that the prisoner will not become a menace to society or to the public safety. [Quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted.] “Much like the legislative sentencing guidelines, each parole-guideline section includes a list of factors to be scored and instructions on the point value to be assigned, which include both positive and negative points.” In re Parole of Elias, 294 Mich A

2020These scores are added together for a “Final Parole Guidelines Score.” Id. at 518 .

2020This list of factors is nonexhaustive and “[r]eviewing courts may consider additional factors if they are relevant to the determination of partiality in a particular case.” Id. at 172 .

2020“The reviewing court must consider the relevance and weigh the significance of each factor under the totality of the circumstances of the case.” Id.