8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1929–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Manley v. Georgiagreen2 sentences1976It has long been the law that: "A statute creating a presumption that is arbitrary or that operates to deny a fair opportunity to repel it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Manley v Georgia, 279 US 1, 6 ; 49 S Ct 215 ; 73 L Ed 575 (1929). 1976It has long been the law that: "A statute creating a presumption that is arbitrary or that operates to deny a fair opportunity to repel it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Manley v Georgia, 279 US 1, 6 ; 49 S Ct 215 ; 73 L Ed 575 (1929). | 1 | 2 |
Tot v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1967For that reason cases dealing with such presumptions are relevant here. ■ In Manley v. Georgia (1929), 279 US 1, 5, 6 ( 49 S Ct 215 , 73 L ed 575), the Supreme Court of the United States detailed the distinctions between valid and invalid statutory presumptions saying, in part, at 6: ' “A statute creating a presumption that is arbitrary or that operates to deny a fair opportunity to repel it violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. * * * Mere legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the determination of issues involving life, liberty or property. ‘It is not within the p 1967For that reason cases dealing with such presumptions are relevant here. ■ In Manley v. Georgia (1929), 279 US 1, 5, 6 ( 49 S Ct 215 , 73 L ed 575), the Supreme Court of the United States detailed the distinctions between valid and invalid statutory presumptions saying, in part, at 6: ' “A statute creating a presumption that is arbitrary or that operates to deny a fair opportunity to repel it violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. * * * Mere legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the determination of issues involving life, liberty or property. ‘It is not within the p | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Romanogreen2 sentences1967For that reason cases dealing with such presumptions are relevant here. ■ In Manley v. Georgia (1929), 279 US 1, 5, 6 ( 49 S Ct 215 , 73 L ed 575), the Supreme Court of the United States detailed the distinctions between valid and invalid statutory presumptions saying, in part, at 6: ' “A statute creating a presumption that is arbitrary or that operates to deny a fair opportunity to repel it violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. * * * Mere legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the determination of issues involving life, liberty or property. ‘It is not within the p 1967For that reason cases dealing with such presumptions are relevant here. ■ In Manley v. Georgia (1929), 279 US 1, 5, 6 ( 49 S Ct 215 , 73 L ed 575), the Supreme Court of the United States detailed the distinctions between valid and invalid statutory presumptions saying, in part, at 6: ' “A statute creating a presumption that is arbitrary or that operates to deny a fair opportunity to repel it violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. * * * Mere legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the determination of issues involving life, liberty or property. ‘It is not within the p | 1 | 1 |
United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co.green1 sentence1929Hence, the making of an unreasonable charge for services cannot be made criminal under a statute creating no test of reasonableness in this respect.” In United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81, 89 (41 Sup. Ct. 298, 14 A. L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Heiner v. Donnan
green
2 sentences2016The United States Supreme Court has decreed that “ ‘a statute creating a presumption which operates to deny a fair opportunity to rebut it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’ ” Vlandis v Kline, 412 US 441, 446 ; 93 S Ct 2230 ; 37 L Ed 2d 63 (1973), quoting Heiner v Donnan, 285 US 312, 329 ; 52 S Ct 358 ; 76 L Ed 772 (1932). 2016The United States Supreme Court has decreed that “ ‘a statute creating a presumption which operates to deny a fair opportunity to rebut it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’ ” Vlandis v Kline, 412 US 441, 446 ; 93 S Ct 2230 ; 37 L Ed 2d 63 (1973), quoting Heiner v Donnan, 285 US 312, 329 ; 52 S Ct 358 ; 76 L Ed 772 (1932). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Vlandis v. Kline
green
2 sentences2016The United States Supreme Court has decreed that “ ‘a statute creating a presumption which operates to deny a fair opportunity to rebut it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’ ” Vlandis v Kline, 412 US 441, 446 ; 93 S Ct 2230 ; 37 L Ed 2d 63 (1973), quoting Heiner v Donnan, 285 US 312, 329 ; 52 S Ct 358 ; 76 L Ed 772 (1932). 2016The United States Supreme Court has decreed that “ ‘a statute creating a presumption which operates to deny a fair opportunity to rebut it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’ ” Vlandis v Kline, 412 US 441, 446 ; 93 S Ct 2230 ; 37 L Ed 2d 63 (1973), quoting Heiner v Donnan, 285 US 312, 329 ; 52 S Ct 358 ; 76 L Ed 772 (1932). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Yee Hem v. United States
green
2 sentences1938The *581 statute compels nothing.’ Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U. S. 178 (45 Sup. Ct. 470). 1937The statute compels nothing.” Tee Hem v. United States, 268 U. S. 178 (45 Sup. Ct. 470). | 2 | 1937–1938 |
Palmer v. State Land Office Board
green
2 sentences2015In Palmer, 304 Mich at 637 , this Court held that “[w]here a statute embraces only part of a subject covered comprehensively by a prior law, the two should be construed together unless a different legislative intent appears; the later being an exception or qualification of the prior only so far as they are repugnant.” The MMMA embraces part of a subject covered comprehensively by Article 7 of the PHC, i.e., the regulation of marijuana, and therefore these two acts should be “construed together” and the MMMA viewed as an “exception” to Article 7 of the PHC “only so far as they are repugnant.” W 2015In Palmer, 304 Mich at 637 , this Court held that “[wjhere a statute embraces only part of a subject covered comprehensively by a prior law, the two should be construed together unless a different legislative intent appears; the later being an exception or qualification of the prior only so far as they are repugnant.” The MMMA embraces part of a subject covered comprehensively by Article 7 of the PHC, i.e., the regulation of marijuana, and therefore these two acts should be “construed together” and the MMMA viewed as an “exception” to Article 7 of the PHC “only so far as they are repugnant.” W | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Johanna Woodard v. University of Mich Medical Ctr
green
1 sentence2015In Palmer, 304 Mich at 637 , this Court held that “[w]here a statute embraces only part of a subject covered comprehensively by a prior law, the two should be construed together unless a different legislative intent appears; the later being an exception or qualification of the prior only so far as they are repugnant.” The MMMA embraces part of a subject covered comprehensively by Article 7 of the PHC, i.e., the regulation of marijuana, and therefore these two acts should be “construed together” and the MMMA viewed as an “exception” to Article 7 of the PHC “only so far as they are repugnant.” W | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bailey v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1967For that reason cases dealing with such presumptions are relevant here. ■ In Manley v. Georgia (1929), 279 US 1, 5, 6 ( 49 S Ct 215 , 73 L ed 575), the Supreme Court of the United States detailed the distinctions between valid and invalid statutory presumptions saying, in part, at 6: ' “A statute creating a presumption that is arbitrary or that operates to deny a fair opportunity to repel it violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. * * * Mere legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the determination of issues involving life, liberty or property. ‘It is not within the p 1967For that reason cases dealing with such presumptions are relevant here. ■ In Manley v. Georgia (1929), 279 US 1, 5, 6 ( 49 S Ct 215 , 73 L ed 575), the Supreme Court of the United States detailed the distinctions between valid and invalid statutory presumptions saying, in part, at 6: ' “A statute creating a presumption that is arbitrary or that operates to deny a fair opportunity to repel it violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. * * * Mere legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the determination of issues involving life, liberty or property. ‘It is not within the p | 1 | 1967–1967 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1938There can be no doubt of the power of the legislature to enact rules of evidence provided such rules do not contravene constitutional rights.” In People v. Jackson, 280 Mich. 6 , in a case involving the validity of a statute creating a presumption of evidence, Mr. Justice Wiest said: “It is also contended that the statute (Act No. 328, § 457, Pub. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.