8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Rafael S. Pena, Gary W. Chittygreen1 sentence1996In upholding a change of a jury instruction that properly informed the jury of the charge, United States v. Pena, 897 F.2d 1075, 1085 (C.A.11, 1990) stated: We do not believe that the requirements of Rule 30 function as a limitation on the district court's obligation to inform the jury of the law which properly governs a case. | 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. Ward
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 629 . 2018Id. at 629 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Hershey
green
2 sentences2017We disagree. “[T]his Court has consistently held that an affirmative statement that there are no objections to the jury instructions constitutes express approval of the instructions, thereby waiving review of any error on appeal.” People v Hershey, 303 Mich App 330, 351 ; 844 NW2d 127 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2017We disagree. “[T]his Court has consistently held that an affirmative statement that there are no objections to the jury instructions constitutes express approval of the instructions, thereby waiving review of any error on appeal.” People v Hershey, 303 Mich App 330, 351 ; 844 NW2d 127 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
In Re MCI Telecommunications Complaint
green
1 sentence2021See MCL 462.26(8); In re MCI Telecom Complaint, 460 Mich at 427 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019Citing favorably a quotation from Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc , 395 U.S. 100 , 123, 89 S.Ct. 1562 , 23 L.Ed.2d 129 (1969), the Michigan Supreme Court observed: "In applying the clearly erroneous standard ... appellate courts must constantly have in mind that their function is not to decide factual issues de novo. 2019Citing favorably a quotation from Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc , 395 U.S. 100 , 123, 89 S.Ct. 1562 , 23 L.Ed.2d 129 (1969), the Michigan Supreme Court observed: "In applying the clearly erroneous standard ... appellate courts must constantly have in mind that their function is not to decide factual issues de novo. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2012This is inappropriate when the standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erreoneous.89 This standard is higher than the standard for aggression, it is not necessary for this Court to review the Court of Appeals’ claim as it relates to the instant case, given that defendant has been acquitted of second-degree murder. 85 Reese, unpub op at 4. 86 Id. at 5. 87 Riddle, 467 Mich at 133 , quoting Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law (3d ed), p 1121. 88 The Court of Appeals’ acknowledgement that “[a]rguably, Reese withdrew from the con | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Riddle
green
1 sentence2012This is inappropriate when the standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erreoneous.89 This standard is higher than the standard for aggression, it is not necessary for this Court to review the Court of Appeals’ claim as it relates to the instant case, given that defendant has been acquitted of second-degree murder. 85 Reese, unpub op at 4. 86 Id. at 5. 87 Riddle, 467 Mich at 133 , quoting Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law (3d ed), p 1121. 88 The Court of Appeals’ acknowledgement that “[a]rguably, Reese withdrew from the con | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.