57 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1948–2025 14 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shambhu Patel v. Hemant Patelgreen2 sentences2022See Patel v Patel, 324 Mich App 631, 634 ; 922 NW2d 647 (2018). 2022See Patel v Patel, 324 Mich App 631, 634 ; 922 NW2d 647 (2018). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Owensgreen2 sentences1974Sullivan v People, 31 Mich 1 (1875); People v Owens, 3 Mich App 707, 712 ; 143 NW2d 574, 576-577 (1966). 1974Sullivan v People, 31 Mich 1 (1875); People v Owens, 3 Mich App 707, 712 ; 143 NW2d 574, 576-577 (1966). | 2 | 2 |
Morris v. Metriyakoolgreen2 sentences2025The party seeking to avoid performance of a contract on the basis of a contract defense such as unconscionability bears the burden of proving that defense. 270 Plaintiff has offered nothing in the trial court, the Court of Appeals, or this Court to suggest that she had no realistic 268 Liparoto, 284 Mich App at 30 (quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added). 269 See id. at 30-31. 270 See Morris, 418 Mich at 439-440 (opinion by KAVANAGH, J.). 61 alternative but to accept employment with defendant on the terms offered. 2025Morris v Metriyakool, 418 Mich 423, 439-440 ; 344 NW2d 736 (1984). | 1 | 3 |
Liparoto Construction, Inc v. General Shale Brick, Incgreen2 sentences2025The party seeking to avoid performance of a contract on the basis of a contract defense such as unconscionability bears the burden of proving that defense. 270 Plaintiff has offered nothing in the trial court, the Court of Appeals, or this Court to suggest that she had no realistic 268 Liparoto, 284 Mich App at 30 (quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added). 269 See id. at 30-31. 270 See Morris, 418 Mich at 439-440 (opinion by KAVANAGH, J.). 61 alternative but to accept employment with defendant on the terms offered. 2025The party seeking to avoid performance of a contract on the basis of a contract defense such as unconscionability bears the burden of proving that defense. 270 Plaintiff has offered nothing in the trial court, the Court of Appeals, or this Court to suggest that she had no realistic 268 Liparoto, 284 Mich App at 30 (quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added). 269 See id. at 30-31. 270 See Morris, 418 Mich at 439-440 (opinion by KAVANAGH, J.). 61 alternative but to accept employment with defendant on the terms offered. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fackelmangreen2 sentences2019“The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.” MCL 768.21a(3); see also People v Fackelman, 489 Mich 515, 544 ; 802 NW2d 552 (2011). 2019“The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.” MCL 768.21a(3); see also People v Fackelman, 489 Mich 515, 544 ; 802 NW2d 552 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2017See People v Jackson, 245 Mich App 17, 24-25 ; 627 NW2d 11 (2001). 2017See People v Jackson, 245 Mich App 17, 24-25 ; 627 NW2d 11 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Eddy Estategreen2 sentences2008See In re Eddy Estate, 354 Mich 334, 348 ; 92 NW2d 458 (1958) (trustee, in filing its account with the court, had the burden of proving its claim for legal fees). 2008See In re Eddy Estate, 354 Mich 334, 348 ; 92 NW2d 458 (1958) (trustee, in filing its account with the court, had the burden of proving its claim for legal fees). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Kowalgreen1 sentence1999Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. (b) Burden of proof.—The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence. [18 USC 17.] Before the enactment of the Act, the American Law Institute (ali) standard, which was incorporated into the Model Penal Code, was used for several decades in nearly all federal courts, see United States v Kowal, 596 F Supp 375, 378 (D Conn, 1984), and provided: A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks sub *179 st | 1 | 1 |
| Personal Finance Co. of New York v. Lyonsgreen | 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. Carpenter
green
2 sentences2025“There are several procedural requirements that must be satisfied before an insanity defense may be raised.” People v Carpenter, 464 Mich 223, 231 ; 627 NW2d 276 (2001). 2025“There are several procedural requirements that must be satisfied before an insanity defense may be raised.” People v Carpenter, 464 Mich 223, 231 ; 627 NW2d 276 (2001). | 4 | 2017–2025 |
People v. D'Angelo
green
2 sentences1988Id. 1979In D'Angelo we also defined the burden of proof required and the standard to be used on review: "We hold therefore that the defendant shall have the burden of proving the claim of entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. * * * "The trial court's finding will be subject to appellate review under the clearly erroneous standard." 401 Mich 167, 183 . | 4 | 1979–1988 |
People v. Pillar
green
2 sentences2024“The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, must be sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find a probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. “[P]robation may not be revoked solely on the basis that the probationer was arrested.” People v Pillar, 233 Mich App 267, 269 ; 590 NW2d 622 (1998). 2024“The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, must be sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find a probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. “[P]robation may not be revoked solely on the basis that the probationer was arrested.” People v Pillar, 233 Mich App 267, 269 ; 590 NW2d 622 (1998). | 3 | 2009–2024 |
Peden v. City of Detroit
green
2 sentences2024“The plaintiff bears the burden of proving a violation of the PWDCRA.” Peden, 470 Mich at 204 . “[I]n interpreting provisions of the [PWDCRA], analogous federal precedents are persuasive, although not necessarily binding.” Chmielewski v Xermac, Inc, 457 Mich 593, 601 ; 580 NW2d 817 (1998). 2021Turning to plaintiff’s claim of disability discrimination under the PWDCRA, a plaintiff “bears the burden of proving a violation of the PWDCRA.” Peden v Detroit, 470 Mich 195, 203 ; 680 NW2d 857 (2004). | 3 | 2020–2024 |
Schmidt v. Eger
green
2 sentences2022“The party asserting the easement has the burden of proving the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” Schmidt v Eger, 94 Mich App 728, 731 ; 289 NW2d 851 (1980). 2022“The party asserting the easement has the burden of proving the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” Schmidt v Eger, 94 Mich App 728, 731 ; 289 NW2d 851 (1980). | 3 | 2015–2022 |
Lince v. Monson
green
2 sentences1981Lince v Monson, 363 Mich 135 [ 108 NW2d 845 ] (1961), Skeffington v Bradley, supra. ” See Mitz v Stern, 27 Mich App 459 ; 183 NW2d 608 (1970). 1981Lince v Monson, 363 Mich 135 [ 108 NW2d 845 ] (1961), Skeffington v Bradley, supra. ” See Mitz v Stern, 27 Mich App 459 ; 183 NW2d 608 (1970). | 3 | 1968–1981 |
Chmielewski v. Xermac, Inc
green
2 sentences2024“The plaintiff bears the burden of proving a violation of the PWDCRA.” Peden, 470 Mich at 204 . “[I]n interpreting provisions of the [PWDCRA], analogous federal precedents are persuasive, although not necessarily binding.” Chmielewski v Xermac, Inc, 457 Mich 593, 601 ; 580 NW2d 817 (1998). 2024“The plaintiff bears the burden of proving a violation of the PWDCRA.” Peden, 470 Mich at 204 . “[I]n interpreting provisions of the [PWDCRA], analogous federal precedents are persuasive, although not necessarily binding.” Chmielewski v Xermac, Inc, 457 Mich 593, 601 ; 580 NW2d 817 (1998). | 2 | 2004–2024 |
People v. Akhmedov
green
2 sentences2015People v Johnson, 466 Mich 491, 498 ; 647 NW2d 480 (2002); People v Akhmedov, 297 Mich App 745, 752 ; 825 NW2d 688 (2012). 2015People v Johnson, 466 Mich 491, 498 ; 647 NW2d 480 (2002); People v Akhmedov, 297 Mich App 745, 752 ; 825 NW2d 688 (2012). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2015People v Johnson, 466 Mich 491, 498 ; 647 NW2d 480 (2002); People v Akhmedov, 297 Mich App 745, 752 ; 825 NW2d 688 (2012). 2015People v Johnson, 466 Mich 491, 498 ; 647 NW2d 480 (2002); People v Akhmedov, 297 Mich App 745, 752 ; 825 NW2d 688 (2012). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Sullivan v. People
green
2 sentences1974Sullivan v People, 31 Mich 1 (1875); People v Owens, 3 Mich App 707, 712 ; 143 NW2d 574, 576-577 (1966). 1973Sullivan v People, 31 Mich 1 (1875); People v Owens, 3 Mich App 707, 712 ; 143 NW2d 574, 576-577 (1966). | 2 | 1973–1974 |
Skeffington v. Bradley
neutral
2 sentences1970Lince v. Monson, supra; Skeffington v. Bradley (1962), 366 Mich 552 . 1968Lince v. Monson (1961), 363 Mich 135 ; Skeffington v. Bradley, supra. Doctor Jones, who had performed “more than a hundred” thyroidectomies prior to plaintiff’s operation, certainly was qualified to testify regarding the requisite standard of professional practice in the community. | 2 | 1968–1970 |
People v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2025In his brief, defendant relies upon People v Murphy, 416 Mich 453, 463-464 ; 331 NW2d 152 (1982), wherein this Court held that “[o]nce any evidence of insanity is introduced. . . the prosecution bears the burden of establishing defendant’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.” However, that portion of Murphy was subsequently superseded by the Michigan legislature’s -5- amendment of MCL 768.21a to add Subsection (3), providing that “[t]he defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.” 1994 PA 56 . 2025In his brief, defendant relies upon People v Murphy, 416 Mich 453, 463-464 ; 331 NW2d 152 (1982), wherein this Court held that “[o]nce any evidence of insanity is introduced. . . the prosecution bears the burden of establishing defendant’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.” However, that portion of Murphy was subsequently superseded by the Michigan legislature’s -5- amendment of MCL 768.21a to add Subsection (3), providing that “[t]he defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.” 1994 PA 56 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Breeding
green
1 sentence2024“The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, must be sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find a probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. “[P]robation may not be revoked solely on the basis that the probationer was arrested.” People v Pillar, 233 Mich App 267, 269 ; 590 NW2d 622 (1998). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Prins v. Michigan State Police
green
2 sentences2021Prins v Michigan State Police, 291 Mich App 586, 589 ; 805 NW2d 619 (2011). 2021Prins v Michigan State Police, 291 Mich App 586, 589 ; 805 NW2d 619 (2011). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Ginther
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 442-443 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Knox
neutral
2 sentences2015In addition, this Court has found that a probationer “has the right to insist that any witness who testifies against him take an oath or affirm to tell the truth.” People v Knox, 115 Mich App 508, 514 ; 321 NW2d 713 (1982). 2015In addition, this Court has found that a probationer “has the right to insist that any witness who testifies against him take an oath or affirm to tell the truth.” People v Knox, 115 Mich App 508, 514 ; 321 NW2d 713 (1982). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Mette
green
2 sentences2015MCL 768.21a(3) requires only that “[t]he defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence,” which this Court has interpreted to mean that the prosecution is not “shouldered with the burden of proving the failure of an affirmative defense.” People v Mette, 243 Mich App 318, 330 ; 621 NW2d 713 (2000). 2015MCL 768.21a(3) requires only that “[t]he defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence,” which this Court has interpreted to mean that the prosecution is not “shouldered with the burden of proving the failure of an affirmative defense.” People v Mette, 243 Mich App 318, 330 ; 621 NW2d 713 (2000). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Baraga County v. State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences2014Baraga Cty v State Tax Comm, 466 Mich 264, 269 ; 645 NW2d 13 (2002). 2014Baraga Cty v State Tax Comm, 466 Mich 264, 269 ; 645 NW2d 13 (2002). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences2001Mental illness or being mentally retarded does not otherwise constitute a defense of legal insanity. (3) The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. [MCL 768.21a; MSA 28.1044(1).] Mental illness is now defined in MCL 330.1400(g); MSA 14.800(400)(g) as “a substantial disorder of thought or mood that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary demands of life.” Defendant argues that requiring a defendant to prove diminished capacity essentially requires him to disprove the el 2001Mental illness or being mentally retarded does not otherwise constitute a defense of legal insanity. (3) The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. [MCL 768.21a; MSA 28.1044(1).] Mental illness is now defined in MCL 330.1400(g); MSA 14.800(400)(g) as “a substantial disorder of thought or mood that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary demands of life.” Defendant argues that requiring a defendant to prove diminished capacity essentially requires him to disprove the el | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Savoie
green
2 sentences1999However, once there is any evidence introduced of insanity, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to estab *173 lish defendant’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.” [People v Savoie, 419 Mich 118, 126 ; 349 NW2d 139 (1984).] The 1994 amendment of the insanity statute, 1994 PA 56 , MCL 768.21a; MSA 28.1044(1), took effect on October 1, 1994, adding to the statute that “legal insanity” is an affirmative defense and that a defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. 1999However, once there is any evidence introduced of insanity, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to estab *173 lish defendant’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.” [People v Savoie, 419 Mich 118, 126 ; 349 NW2d 139 (1984).] The 1994 amendment of the insanity statute, 1994 PA 56 , MCL 768.21a; MSA 28.1044(1), took effect on October 1, 1994, adding to the statute that “legal insanity” is an affirmative defense and that a defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Russo
green
2 sentences1999People v Russo, 439 Mich 584, 592-593 ; 487 NW2d 698 (1992). 1999People v Russo, 439 Mich 584, 592-593 ; 487 NW2d 698 (1992). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Rental Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Grand Rapids
green
1 sentence1998Rental Property Owners Ass'n, supra at 253, 566 N.W.2d 514 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Alexander v. Riccinto green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Szlapa v. National Travelers Life Co. neutral | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| In Re Forfeiture of 719 N Main green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Turner green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Go-Tane Service Stations, Inc. v. Sharp green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Wood v. Posthuma green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Conn v. Bank of Clarendon Hills green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Mitz v. Stern green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Patelczyk v. Olson green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Kahn-Reiss, Inc. v. Detroit & Northern Savings & Loan Ass'n green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Leland v. Oregon green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Rivera v. Delaware green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Patterson v. New York green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| United States v. Vuitch green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Redding v. Snyder green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Fawley v. Doehler-Jarvis Division of National Lead Co. green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Helmer v. Dearborn National Insurance green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Struble v. National Liberty Insurance Co. of America green | 1 | 1948–1948 |
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.