9 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1953–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
BH v. People Ex Rel. XHgreen2 sentences2012Further, our State Court Administrative Office recently adopted the BIA standards, with some slight variations, in its ICWA resource guide. 16 Second, we also find instructive BH v People ex rel XH, 138 P3d 299, 303 (Colo, 2006), in which the Colorado Supreme Court examined this same issue and noted: Precisely what constitutes “reason to know” or “reason to believe” in any particular set of circumstances will necessarily evade meaningful description. 2012Further, our State Court Administrative Office recently adopted the BIA standards, with some slight variations, in its ICWA resource guide. 16 Second, we also find instructive BH v People ex rel XH, 138 P3d 299, 303 (Colo, 2006), in which the Colorado Supreme Court examined this same issue and noted: Precisely what constitutes “reason to know” or “reason to believe” in any particular set of circumstances will necessarily evade meaningful description. | 2 | 2 |
In Re MCPgreen1 sentence2012If there must be error in determining whether tribal notice is required, let it be on the side of caution. 19 See In re MCP, 153 Vt 275, 289; 571 A2d 627 (1989) (“To maintain stability in placements of children in juvenile proceedings, it is preferable to err on the side of giving notice and examining thoroughly whether the juvenile is an Indian child.”). | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Russellgreen2 sentences1987See Sullivan v Russell, 417 Mich 398 ; 338 NW2d 181 (1983). 8 The Comment to the Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions succinctly states the difference between questions of law for the trial court and questions of fact for the jury in a res ipsa loquitur case: Whether the maxim, res ipsa loquitur, may be applied in a given case is a question of law, but whether the presumption arising when the maxim has been applied has been overcome by proof is a question of fact. [Citations omitted.] The presumption of negligence is a permissive presumption of fact and is circumstantial evidence to be considere 1987See Sullivan v Russell, 417 Mich 398 ; 338 NW2d 181 (1983). 8 The Comment to the Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions succinctly states the difference between questions of law for the trial court and questions of fact for the jury in a res ipsa loquitur case: Whether the maxim, res ipsa loquitur, may be applied in a given case is a question of law, but whether the presumption arising when the maxim has been applied has been overcome by proof is a question of fact. [Citations omitted.] The presumption of negligence is a permissive presumption of fact and is circumstantial evidence to be considere | 1 | 1 |
Knight-Morley Corp. v. Employment Security Commissiongreen1 sentence1963See Peaden v. Employment Security Commission, supra. *492 The entire range of this controversy and its consequences are illumined in the opinions found in Knight-Morley Corporation v. Employment Security Commission, 350 Mich 397 (Justice Talbot Smith’s opinion, beginning at p 411); Peaden v. Employment Security Commission, supra (Justice Black’s opinion, beginning at p 614, and Justice Talbot Smith’s opinion, beginning at p 635); and Miller v. F. W. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re BAIL BOND FORFEITURE
green
2 sentences2015MCR 2.511(D) is a permissive rule, not a mandatory one, providing that “the parties may challenge jurors for cause.” (Emphasis -4- added.) See In re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 496 Mich 320, 328 ; 852 NW2d 747 (2014) (stating that “may” is a permissive term, not a mandatory one). 2015MCR 2.511(D) is a permissive rule, not a mandatory one, providing that “the parties may challenge jurors for cause.” (Emphasis -4- added.) See In re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 496 Mich 320, 328 ; 852 NW2d 747 (2014) (stating that “may” is a permissive term, not a mandatory one). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Champion
neutral
2 sentences2009See, e.g:, People v Champion, 411 Mich 468, 471 ; 307 NW2d 681 (1981). 2009See, e.g:, People v Champion, 411 Mich 468, 471 ; 307 NW2d 681 (1981). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
green
2 sentences1995A permissive presumption allows, but does not require, the jury to find proof of an element of the crime from proof of a basic fact, and "affects the application of the 'beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard only if, under the facts of the case, there is no rational way the trier could make the connection permitted by the inference.” Ulster Co Court v Allen, 442 US 140, 157 ; 99 S Ct 2213 ; 60 L Ed 2d 777 (1979). 1995A permissive presumption allows, but does not require, the jury to find proof of an element of the crime from proof of a basic fact, and "affects the application of the 'beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard only if, under the facts of the case, there is no rational way the trier could make the connection permitted by the inference.” Ulster Co Court v Allen, 442 US 140, 157 ; 99 S Ct 2213 ; 60 L Ed 2d 777 (1979). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Lee
green
1 sentence1967This we find satisfies the permissive rule allowing the people to prove material facts by other testimony even though the effect is to directly con *533 trovert the testimony of the people’s own witnesses, as stated in People v. Lee, supra. It would he an unusual result under these circumstances if the testimony of one or more of the co-conspirators denying the agreement, which is the gravamen of the offense and ultimate question for the jury to determine, would require a directed verdict in favor of all defendants. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Hallett v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.
green
1 sentence1953See in this connection Court Rule No 40 for the production of books and papers; Court Rule No 41 for discovery by deposition and examination as to injuries; Court Rule No 42 regarding admissions from adverse party; and Hallett v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co., 298 Mich 582 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.