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.
8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2025 2 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. Grimmettgreen2 sentences1978In determining whether defendant waived his right to be present at trial, we look to People v Grimmett, 388 Mich 590, 598 ; 202 NW2d 278, 282 (1972), wherein the Court defined waiver requirements: "Waiver is defined in Johnson v Zerbst, 304 US 458, 464 ; 58 S Ct 1019, 1023 ; 82 L Ed 1461 (1938), as 'an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’ The Court added, 'courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver’ of fundamental constitutional rights and * * * we 'do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.’ Thus, waiver consists of two 1978In determining whether defendant waived his right to be present at trial, we look to People v Grimmett, 388 Mich 590, 598 ; 202 NW2d 278, 282 (1972), wherein the Court defined waiver requirements: "Waiver is defined in Johnson v Zerbst, 304 US 458, 464 ; 58 S Ct 1019, 1023 ; 82 L Ed 1461 (1938), as 'an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’ The Court added, 'courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver’ of fundamental constitutional rights and * * * we 'do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.’ Thus, waiver consists of two | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Zerbstgreen2 sentences1978In determining whether defendant waived his right to be present at trial, we look to People v Grimmett, 388 Mich 590, 598 ; 202 NW2d 278, 282 (1972), wherein the Court defined waiver requirements: "Waiver is defined in Johnson v Zerbst, 304 US 458, 464 ; 58 S Ct 1019, 1023 ; 82 L Ed 1461 (1938), as 'an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’ The Court added, 'courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver’ of fundamental constitutional rights and * * * we 'do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.’ Thus, waiver consists of two 1978In determining whether defendant waived his right to be present at trial, we look to People v Grimmett, 388 Mich 590, 598 ; 202 NW2d 278, 282 (1972), wherein the Court defined waiver requirements: "Waiver is defined in Johnson v Zerbst, 304 US 458, 464 ; 58 S Ct 1019, 1023 ; 82 L Ed 1461 (1938), as 'an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’ The Court added, 'courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver’ of fundamental constitutional rights and * * * we 'do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.’ Thus, waiver consists of two | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whitman v. City of Burton
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Atkins v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation
green
1 sentence2024“A claim is not merely an occurrence; it is a demand for payment pursuant to a legal right as a result of that occurrence.” Atkins, 492 Mich at 720 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Olano
green
2 sentences2001Citing United States v Olano, 507 US 725, 732-733 ; 113 S Ct 1770 ; 123 L Ed 2d 508 (1993), the Court defined error as “deviation from a legal rule unless the rule has been waived.” Carter, supra at 214 . 2001Citing United States v Olano, 507 US 725, 732-733 ; 113 S Ct 1770 ; 123 L Ed 2d 508 (1993), the Court defined error as “deviation from a legal rule unless the rule has been waived.” Carter, supra at 214 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Carter
green
1 sentence2001Citing United States v Olano, 507 US 725, 732-733 ; 113 S Ct 1770 ; 123 L Ed 2d 508 (1993), the Court defined error as “deviation from a legal rule unless the rule has been waived.” Carter, supra at 214 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Plumley v. Klein
green
2 sentences1984There, the issue before the trial court was not whether the parent’s allegedly tortious activity fell within a clearly defined exception under Plumley, supra, but rather whether or not the activity was even negligent. 1984There, the issue before the trial court was not whether the parent's allegedly tortious activity fell within a clearly defined exception under Plumley, supra, but rather whether or not the activity was even negligent. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Spalding v. Spalding
green
1 sentence1970The establishment of a clearly defined rule of action would be the end of discretion, and yet discretion should not be a word for arbitrary will or inconsiderate action. ‘Discretion means a decision of what is just and proper in the circumstances.’ Bouvier’s Law Diet. ‘Discretion means the liberty or power of acting without other control than one’s own judgment.’ Webster’s Diet.” 8 This Court said' unanimously, in Spalding v. Spalding (1959), 355 Mich 382 , 384: “In view of the frequency with which cases are reaching this Court assailing the exercise of a trial court’s discretion as an abuse t | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Colón v. Industrial Commission
neutral
1 sentence1924“Courts, in passing upon such questions, should endeavor to put themselves in the position of the actors in the transaction, and not be ready to find that the course actually pursued was blameworthy because the results were unfortunate; what those concerned have a right to demand of a master, when confronted with unexpected emergencies, is not an infallible but a deliberate and considerate judgment.” In Taylor v. Robertson, 16 Utah, 330 ( 52 Pac. 1 ), it was said: “Discretion, when vested in an officer, however, does not mean absolute or arbitrary power. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Taylor v. Robertson
green
1 sentence1924“Courts, in passing upon such questions, should endeavor to put themselves in the position of the actors in the transaction, and not be ready to find that the course actually pursued was blameworthy because the results were unfortunate; what those concerned have a right to demand of a master, when confronted with unexpected emergencies, is not an infallible but a deliberate and considerate judgment.” In Taylor v. Robertson, 16 Utah, 330 ( 52 Pac. 1 ), it was said: “Discretion, when vested in an officer, however, does not mean absolute or arbitrary power. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.