close analysis in Michigan

2021The purpose of the declaratory judgment rule is: to enable parties, in appropriate circumstances of actual controversy, to obtain an adjudication of their rights before actual injury occurs, to settle matters before they ripen into violations of law or a breach of contractual duty, to avoid multiplicity of actions by affording a remedy for declaring in one expedient action the rights and obligation of all litigants, or to avoid the strictures associated with obtaining coercive relief, when coercive relief is neither desired nor necessary to resolve the -14- matter. [Skiera v Nat’l Indemnity Co

2021The purpose of the declaratory judgment rule is: to enable parties, in appropriate circumstances of actual controversy, to obtain an adjudication of their rights before actual injury occurs, to settle matters before they ripen into violations of law or a breach of contractual duty, to avoid multiplicity of actions by affording a remedy for declaring in one expedient action the rights and obligation of all litigants, or to avoid the strictures associated with obtaining coercive relief, when coercive relief is neither desired nor necessary to resolve the -14- matter. [Skiera v Nat’l Indemnity Co

2020During the later evidentiary hearing to develop appellate counsel’s argument of ineffective assistance of counsel, see People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973), defendant’s trial attorney testified that he received “an invitation” to be present at the hearing, but understood that, despite his continuing formal status as defendant’s attorney, his role during the hearing was to “appear as an observer” while the trial judge maintained “complete control of the court room.” Defense counsel admitted that he did not discuss the hearing over the juror’s concerns with defendant, and ex

2020During the later evidentiary hearing to develop appellate counsel’s argument of ineffective assistance of counsel, see People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973), defendant’s trial attorney testified that he received “an invitation” to be present at the hearing, but understood that, despite his continuing formal status as defendant’s attorney, his role during the hearing was to “appear as an observer” while the trial judge maintained “complete control of the court room.” Defense counsel admitted that he did not discuss the hearing over the juror’s concerns with defendant, and ex

2005See Winkle brief at 17 (permitting a multiple-township detachment would lead to “absurd results which create injustice”); Secretary of State brief at 35 (“‘[p]ublic policy requires that statutes controlling the manner in which elections are conducted be construed as fair as possible’”); City of Holland brief at 20 (a multiple-township detachment is “one of the most egregious examples of . . . inherent mischief”). 40 Lansing Mayor, supra at 168 ; Koontz, supra at 312 ; Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare Sys, 465 Mich 53, 60 ; 631 NW2d 686 (2001). 21 A close analysis of the text of the HRCA demonstrat

2005See Winkle brief at 17 (permitting a multiple-township detachment would lead to “absurd results which create injustice”); Secretary of State brief at 35 (“‘[p]ublic policy requires that statutes controlling the manner in which elections are conducted be construed as fair as possible’”); City of Holland brief at 20 (a multiple-township detachment is “one of the most egregious examples of . . . inherent mischief”). 40 Lansing Mayor, supra at 168 ; Koontz, supra at 312 ; Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare Sys, 465 Mich 53, 60 ; 631 NW2d 686 (2001). 21 A close analysis of the text of the HRCA demonstrat

2005See Winkle brief at 17 (permitting a multiple-township detachment would lead to “absurd results which create injustice”); Secretary of State brief at 35 (“‘[p]ublic policy requires that statutes controlling the manner in which elections are conducted be construed as fair as possible’”); City of Holland brief at 20 (a multiple-township detachment is “one of the most egregious examples of . . . inherent mischief”). 40 Lansing Mayor, supra at 168 ; Koontz, supra at 312 ; Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare Sys, 465 Mich 53, 60 ; 631 NW2d 686 (2001). 21 A close analysis of the text of the HRCA demonstrat

2005See Winkle brief at 17 (permitting a multiple-township detachment would lead to “absurd results which create injustice”); Secretary of State brief at 35 (“‘[p]ublic policy requires that statutes controlling the manner in which elections are conducted be construed as fair as possible’”); City of Holland brief at 20 (a multiple-township detachment is “one of the most egregious examples of . . . inherent mischief”). 40 Lansing Mayor, supra at 168 ; Koontz, supra at 312 ; Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare Sys, 465 Mich 53, 60 ; 631 NW2d 686 (2001). 21 A close analysis of the text of the HRCA demonstrat

2004For instance, in Hejfron v Flanigan, 37 Mich 274 (1877), we considered the nature of a mortgage given at the same time that title was acquired as opposed to a prior mortgage given on the same property before the mortgagor had acquired title to it.

2004For instance, in Heffron v. Flanigan, 37 Mich. 274 (1877), we considered the nature of a mortgage given at the same time that title was acquired as opposed to a prior mortgage given on the same property before the mortgagor had acquired title to it.

2003People v Barbara, 400 Mich 352 ; 255 NW2d 171 (1977). 2 See Darden, supra (improper comments by prosecutor were made in closing remarks, in response to comments made by defense in opening summation); Young, supra at 13 (“the prosecutor at the close of defense summation should have objected to the defense counsel’s improper statements with a request that the court give a timely warning and curative instruction to the jury.”); Lawn v United States, 355 US 339, 359 ; 78 S Ct 311 ; 2 L Ed 2d 321 (1958) (defense counsel made improper statements in closing argument, the prosecutor did not object, bu

2003People v Barbara, 400 Mich 352 ; 255 NW2d 171 (1977). 2 See Darden, supra (improper comments by prosecutor were made in closing remarks, in response to comments made by defense in opening summation); Young, supra at 13 (“the prosecutor at the close of defense summation should have objected to the defense counsel’s improper statements with a request that the court give a timely warning and curative instruction to the jury.”); Lawn v United States, 355 US 339, 359 ; 78 S Ct 311 ; 2 L Ed 2d 321 (1958) (defense counsel made improper statements in closing argument, the prosecutor did not object, bu

2003People v Barbara, 400 Mich 352 ; 255 NW2d 171 (1977). 2 See Darden, supra (improper comments by prosecutor were made in closing remarks, in response to comments made by defense in opening summation); Young, supra at 13 (“the prosecutor at the close of defense summation should have objected to the defense counsel’s improper statements with a request that the court give a timely warning and curative instruction to the jury.”); Lawn v United States, 355 US 339, 359 ; 78 S Ct 311 ; 2 L Ed 2d 321 (1958) (defense counsel made improper statements in closing argument, the prosecutor did not object, bu

2003People v Barbara, 400 Mich 352 ; 255 NW2d 171 (1977). 2 See Darden, supra (improper comments by prosecutor were made in closing remarks, in response to comments made by defense in opening summation); Young, supra at 13 (“the prosecutor at the close of defense summation should have objected to the defense counsel’s improper statements with a request that the court give a timely warning and curative instruction to the jury.”); Lawn v United States, 355 US 339, 359 ; 78 S Ct 311 ; 2 L Ed 2d 321 (1958) (defense counsel made improper statements in closing argument, the prosecutor did not object, bu

2003People v Barbara, 400 Mich 352 ; 255 NW2d 171 (1977). 2 See Darden, supra (improper comments by prosecutor were made in closing remarks, in response to comments made by defense in opening summation); Young, supra at 13 (“the prosecutor at the close of defense summation should have objected to the defense counsel’s improper statements with a request that the court give a timely warning and curative instruction to the jury.”); Lawn v United States, 355 US 339, 359 ; 78 S Ct 311 ; 2 L Ed 2d 321 (1958) (defense counsel made improper statements in closing argument, the prosecutor did not object, bu

1991Mimms, supra at 111 .

1991Mimms, supra at 111 .

1973Perin v Peuler, supra. *769 We are not unmindful of the language in People v Fields, supra, 76, to the effect that " * * * a statute, invalid for want of standards according to the constitutional rule * * * [cannot] be validated by any rule of Court which, although in itself well within the constitutional powers of the Court, undertakes to supply what the statute does not.” Close analysis of the cases cited in Fields in support of that proposition reveals that language to apply to situations where either nonjudicial authorities are sought to be sanctioned by the judicial decision-making proces