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.
9 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Buiegreen2 sentences2022Having affirmatively agreed to this instruction, we conclude defendant has waived review of this issue.3 People v Chapo, 283 Mich App 360, 372-373 ; 770 NW2d 68 (2009) (“Counsel’s affirmative expression of satisfaction with the trial court’s jury instruction waived any error.”); People v Buie, 491 Mich 294, 312 ; 817 NW2d 33 (2012) (“Defense counsel cannot acquiesce to the court’s handling of a matter at trial, only to later raise the issue as an error on appeal.”). 2022Having affirmatively agreed to this instruction, we conclude defendant has waived review of this issue.3 People v Chapo, 283 Mich App 360, 372-373 ; 770 NW2d 68 (2009) (“Counsel’s affirmative expression of satisfaction with the trial court’s jury instruction waived any error.”); People v Buie, 491 Mich 294, 312 ; 817 NW2d 33 (2012) (“Defense counsel cannot acquiesce to the court’s handling of a matter at trial, only to later raise the issue as an error on appeal.”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Chapogreen2 sentences2022Having affirmatively agreed to this instruction, we conclude defendant has waived review of this issue.3 People v Chapo, 283 Mich App 360, 372-373 ; 770 NW2d 68 (2009) (“Counsel’s affirmative expression of satisfaction with the trial court’s jury instruction waived any error.”); People v Buie, 491 Mich 294, 312 ; 817 NW2d 33 (2012) (“Defense counsel cannot acquiesce to the court’s handling of a matter at trial, only to later raise the issue as an error on appeal.”). 2022Having affirmatively agreed to this instruction, we conclude defendant has waived review of this issue.3 People v Chapo, 283 Mich App 360, 372-373 ; 770 NW2d 68 (2009) (“Counsel’s affirmative expression of satisfaction with the trial court’s jury instruction waived any error.”); People v Buie, 491 Mich 294, 312 ; 817 NW2d 33 (2012) (“Defense counsel cannot acquiesce to the court’s handling of a matter at trial, only to later raise the issue as an error on appeal.”). | 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. Ho
green
2 sentences2014People v Ho, 231 Mich App 178, 188 ; 585 NW2d 357 (1998). 2014People v Ho, 231 Mich App 178, 188 ; 585 NW2d 357 (1998). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Petri
green
2 sentences2017“Jurors are presumed to follow instructions, and instructions are presumed to cure most errors.” People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407, 414 ; 760 NW2d 882 (2008). 2017“Jurors are presumed to follow instructions, and instructions are presumed to cure most errors.” People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407, 414 ; 760 NW2d 882 (2008). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Meissner
green
2 sentences2015“Jurors are presumed to follow the instructions of the court.” People v Meissner, 294 Mich App 438, 457 ; 812 NW2d 37 (2011). 2015“Jurors are presumed to follow the instructions of the court.” People v Meissner, 294 Mich App 438, 457 ; 812 NW2d 37 (2011). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Ranes
green
2 sentences1977For this reason, the Court refused to excuse any of the jurors so challenged for cause, refused to grant Defendant’s Motion for Adjournment until a new jury panel could be summoned, and placed Defendant in the position where he had ten (10) jurors seated who had previously returned a verdict of guilty at least once against a Defendant charged with delivery of a controlled substance based on the testimony of Finch and Cramer.” The trial judge found: "The Court granted the maximum latitude to defense counsel during the voir dire examination and the Court recalls that the issues or the facts that 1977For this reason, the Court refused to excuse any of the jurors so challenged for cause, refused to grant Defendant’s Motion for Adjournment until a new jury panel could be summoned, and placed Defendant in the position where he had ten (10) jurors seated who had previously returned a verdict of guilty at least once against a Defendant charged with delivery of a controlled substance based on the testimony of Finch and Cramer.” The trial judge found: "The Court granted the maximum latitude to defense counsel during the voir dire examination and the Court recalls that the issues or the facts that | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Murphy v. Florida
green
2 sentences1977For this reason, the Court refused to excuse any of the jurors so challenged for cause, refused to grant Defendant’s Motion for Adjournment until a new jury panel could be summoned, and placed Defendant in the position where he had ten (10) jurors seated who had previously returned a verdict of guilty at least once against a Defendant charged with delivery of a controlled substance based on the testimony of Finch and Cramer.” The trial judge found: "The Court granted the maximum latitude to defense counsel during the voir dire examination and the Court recalls that the issues or the facts that 1977For this reason, the Court refused to excuse any of the jurors so challenged for cause, refused to grant Defendant’s Motion for Adjournment until a new jury panel could be summoned, and placed Defendant in the position where he had ten (10) jurors seated who had previously returned a verdict of guilty at least once against a Defendant charged with delivery of a controlled substance based on the testimony of Finch and Cramer.” The trial judge found: "The Court granted the maximum latitude to defense counsel during the voir dire examination and the Court recalls that the issues or the facts that | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Bates
green
2 sentences1977People v Bates, 55 Mich App 1, 6 ; 222 NW2d 6 (1974). 1977People v Bates, 55 Mich App 1, 6 ; 222 NW2d 6 (1974). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Cole
green
1 sentence1969This court said in People v. Cole (1967), 8 Mich App 250, 256 , 257: *629 “Defense counsel requested the trial court to charge the jurors on the defense of insanity in accord with the Durham rule, whereby an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act is the product of a mental disease or defect. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Watertown Ecclesiastical Society's Appeal from Probate
green
1 sentence1943As was said in State v. Mosca, 90 Conn. 381 ( 97 Atl. 340 ): “But, however the declarations of the foreman are to be construed, the verdict in the case is that *14 which was repeated to the jurors and to which they each assented. ‘This last answer by each juror made the verdict.’ Watertown Ecclesiastical Society’s Appeal from Probate, 46 Conn. 230 . | 1 | 1943–1943 |
State v. Mosca
green
2 sentences1943As was said in State v. Mosca, 90 Conn. 381 ( 97 Atl. 340 ): “But, however the declarations of the foreman are to be construed, the verdict in the case is that *14 which was repeated to the jurors and to which they each assented. ‘This last answer by each juror made the verdict.’ Watertown Ecclesiastical Society’s Appeal from Probate, 46 Conn. 230 . 1943As was said in State v. Mosca, 90 Conn. 381 ( 97 Atl. 340 ): “But, however the declarations of the foreman are to be construed, the verdict in the case is that *14 which was repeated to the jurors and to which they each assented. ‘This last answer by each juror made the verdict.’ Watertown Ecclesiastical Society’s Appeal from Probate, 46 Conn. 230 . | 1 | 1943–1943 |
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.