9 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rentz v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2016See Rentz v Gen Motors Corp, 70 Mich App 249, 253 ; 245 NW2d 705 (1976) (concluding that a doctor’s report that referred to a report that was prepared by another doctor was admissible because it was evidence that a reasonably prudent person would rely upon in conducting their affairs); see also Helm v Univ of Mich, 147 Mich App 135, 138 ; 383 NW2d 131 (1985) (concluding that a letter written by a therapist on a hospital letterhead was admissible because it was evidence that a reasonably prudent person would rely upon in conducting their affairs). 2016See Rentz v Gen Motors Corp, 70 Mich App 249, 253 ; 245 NW2d 705 (1976) (concluding that a doctor’s report that referred to a report that was prepared by another doctor was admissible because it was evidence that a reasonably prudent person would rely upon in conducting their affairs); see also Helm v Univ of Mich, 147 Mich App 135, 138 ; 383 NW2d 131 (1985) (concluding that a letter written by a therapist on a hospital letterhead was admissible because it was evidence that a reasonably prudent person would rely upon in conducting their affairs). | 1 | 1 |
Helm v. University of Michigangreen2 sentences2016See Rentz v Gen Motors Corp, 70 Mich App 249, 253 ; 245 NW2d 705 (1976) (concluding that a doctor’s report that referred to a report that was prepared by another doctor was admissible because it was evidence that a reasonably prudent person would rely upon in conducting their affairs); see also Helm v Univ of Mich, 147 Mich App 135, 138 ; 383 NW2d 131 (1985) (concluding that a letter written by a therapist on a hospital letterhead was admissible because it was evidence that a reasonably prudent person would rely upon in conducting their affairs). 2016See Rentz v Gen Motors Corp, 70 Mich App 249, 253 ; 245 NW2d 705 (1976) (concluding that a doctor’s report that referred to a report that was prepared by another doctor was admissible because it was evidence that a reasonably prudent person would rely upon in conducting their affairs); see also Helm v Univ of Mich, 147 Mich App 135, 138 ; 383 NW2d 131 (1985) (concluding that a letter written by a therapist on a hospital letterhead was admissible because it was evidence that a reasonably prudent person would rely upon in conducting their affairs). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Braska v. Challenge Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences2019In Braska, this Court addressed the issue “whether an employee who possesses a registration identification card under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) MCL 333.26421 et seq., is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under the Michigan Employment Security Act (MESA), MCL 421.1 et seq., after the employee has been fired for failing to pass a drug test as a result of marijuana use.” Braska, 307 Mich App at 343 . 2016Additionally, we reject Squier’s argument that our decision in Braska v Challenge Mfg Co, 307 Mich App 340 ; 861 NW2d 289 (2014), automatically requires reversal in this case. | 2 | 2016–2019 |
People v. Anstey
green
2 sentences2025In People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436, 461 ; 719 NW2d 579 (2006), our Supreme Court observed that, “[f]or due process purposes, there is a crucial distinction between failing to disclose evidence that has been developed and failing to develop evidence in the first instance.” In Anstey, the defendant sought to have an independent drug test done at a hospital, but the arresting officer declined to allow him to do so. 2025In People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436, 461 ; 719 NW2d 579 (2006), our Supreme Court observed that, “[f]or due process purposes, there is a crucial distinction between failing to disclose evidence that has been developed and failing to develop evidence in the first instance.” In Anstey, the defendant sought to have an independent drug test done at a hospital, but the arresting officer declined to allow him to do so. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Cobbs
green
2 sentences2020The 1 People v Harris, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 30, 2019, (Docket No. 349008). 2 People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276 ; 505 NW2d 208 (1993). -1- PSIR further noted that defendant admitted to using marijuana and told the testing-center staff that he would likely test positive for marijuana. 2020The 1 People v Harris, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 30, 2019, (Docket No. 349008). 2 People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276 ; 505 NW2d 208 (1993). -1- PSIR further noted that defendant admitted to using marijuana and told the testing-center staff that he would likely test positive for marijuana. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Lewis v. LeGrow
green
2 sentences2019“Under Michigan’s rules of evidence, all logically relevant evidence is admissible at trial, except as otherwise prohibited by the state or federal constitutions or other court rules.” Lewis v LeGrow, 258 Mich App 175, 199 ; 670 NW2d 675 (2003), citing MRE 402. 2019“Under Michigan’s rules of evidence, all logically relevant evidence is admissible at trial, except as otherwise prohibited by the state or federal constitutions or other court rules.” Lewis v LeGrow, 258 Mich App 175, 199 ; 670 NW2d 675 (2003), citing MRE 402. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Coleman
green
2 sentences2018People v Coleman, 210 Mich App 1, 4 ; 532 NW2d 885 (1995) (evidence of flight is probative because it may indicate consciousness of guilt, although evidence of flight by itself is insufficient to sustain a conviction). 2018People v Coleman, 210 Mich App 1, 4 ; 532 NW2d 885 (1995) (evidence of flight is probative because it may indicate consciousness of guilt, although evidence of flight by itself is insufficient to sustain a conviction). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Ford Motor Company v. City of Woodhaven
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Vander Laan v. Mulder
green
1 sentence2014See Vander Laan v Mulder, 178 Mich App 176 ; 443 NW2d 491 (1989) (noting that when an individual is denied unemployment benefits, the employer’s conduct is not at issue). -13- unemployment benefits after he was terminated for failing a drug test. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Koon
green
1 sentence2014Koon, 494 Mich at 8-9 . c. application The central issue presented in these three appeals is whether an employee who has a medical marijuana card and is discharged after failing a drug test may be denied unemployment benefits. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Straight
green
1 sentence2000Similarly, complainant's aunt testified that Ganger advised that if the matter were pursued, "things could get out of hand" such that defendant, his attorney, or the court could require complainant to undergo drug testing, and correlated complainant's relationship with her boyfriend with "what defendant was doing with her." Ganger either denied that he made the comments or stated that the witnesses had taken them out of context. [4] Straight, supra at 421, n. 1 , 424 N.W.2d 257 . [1] Thus, I do not believe it is necessary to determine whether the bias exception would apply in those cases where | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.