57 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2026 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCORMICK v. CARRIERgreen2 sentences2023With respect to the first prong of the test for showing a serious impairment of body function test, “an ‘objectively manifested’ impairment is commonly understood as one observable or perceivable from actual symptoms or conditions.” McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180, 196 ; 795 NW2d 517 (2010). 2023With respect to the first prong of the test for showing a serious impairment of body function test, “an ‘objectively manifested’ impairment is commonly understood as one observable or perceivable from actual symptoms or conditions.” McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180, 196 ; 795 NW2d 517 (2010). | 3 | 6 |
People v. Hanagreen2 sentences2018See MCL 712A.3, as amended by 1996 PA 409 . -3- Rather, and in derogation of the common law, juvenile justice procedures are governed by statutes and court rules that the probate courts are required to follow in the absence of constitutional infirmity. [People v Hana, 443 Mich 202, 220 ; 504 NW2d 166 (1993).] Here, there is no evidence that respondent suffered any prejudice, and respondent therefore has failed to meet the first prong of the test for showing a due process violation based on a prearrest delay in prosecution. 2018See MCL 712A.3, as amended by 1996 PA 409 . -3- Rather, and in derogation of the common law, juvenile justice procedures are governed by statutes and court rules that the probate courts are required to follow in the absence of constitutional infirmity. [People v Hana, 443 Mich 202, 220 ; 504 NW2d 166 (1993).] Here, there is no evidence that respondent suffered any prejudice, and respondent therefore has failed to meet the first prong of the test for showing a due process violation based on a prearrest delay in prosecution. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Trakhtenberggreen2 sentences2025Accordingly, defendant has not established the first prong of the test for ineffective assistance, i.e., that counsel rendered objectively deficient performance, Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich at 51 , and is therefore not entitled to relief. 2020See Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich at 51 . | 1 | 3 |
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewiczgreen2 sentences2016Similarly, when a party “reach [es] out beyond one state and create [s] continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state,” the party has “availed [it] self of the privilege of conducting business there . . . .” Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz, 471 US 462, 473, 476 ; 105 S Ct 2174 ; 85 L Ed 2d 528 (1985). 2016Similarly, when a party “reach [es] out beyond one state and create [s] continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state,” the party has “availed [it] self of the privilege of conducting business there . . . .” Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz, 471 US 462, 473, 476 ; 105 S Ct 2174 ; 85 L Ed 2d 528 (1985). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Garciagreen2 sentences1982The first prong of the test focuses on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, for which the Supreme Court has adopted the standard established in Beasley v United States, 491 F2d 687, 696 (CA 6, 1974), People v Garcia, supra, 264. 1981Garcia, supra, 264 . | 1 | 2 |
People v. Bentongreen1 sentence2022See Benton, 294 Mich App at 204 (stating that the first prong of the three-prong test is “the severity of the sentence imposed and the gravity of the offense”).8 Defendant’s sentences reflect the seriousness of his offenses, and defendant otherwise ignores his escalating criminal behavior and the fact that, as previously stated, “the state has a right to protect itself from individuals who continue to engage in criminal activities.” Burkett, ___ Mich App at ___;slip op at 3 (quotation marks and citation 7 We acknowledge that because defendant’s life sentence for witness intimidation is to be s | 1 | 1 |
Rhodes v. EI DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO.green1 sentence2021“In applying the first prong of the test, courts focus on whether the party seeking disqualification acted reasonably in assuming that a confidential or fiduciary relationship existed.” Rhodes, 558 F Supp 2d at 667 (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Hamed v. Wayne Countygreen2 sentences2020Under Hamed v Wayne Co, 490 Mich 1, 12 (2011), an employer may be held vicariously liable for an employee’s criminal conduct when “an employer had (1) actual or constructive knowledge of prior similar conduct and (2) actual or constructive knowledge of the employee’s propensity to act in accordance with that conduct.” To satisfy the first prong of this test, there must be sufficient similarity between the prior conduct of the employee and the conduct at issue as to lead a reasonable employer to recognize the prior conduct as an “inevitable prelude” to criminal sexual conduct or as conduct that 2020Under Hamed v Wayne Co, 490 Mich 1, 12 (2011), an employer may be held vicariously liable for an employee’s criminal conduct when “an employer had (1) actual or constructive knowledge of prior similar conduct and (2) actual or constructive knowledge of the employee’s propensity to act in accordance with that conduct.” To satisfy the first prong of this test, there must be sufficient similarity between the prior conduct of the employee and the conduct at issue as to lead a reasonable employer to recognize the prior conduct as an “inevitable prelude” to criminal sexual conduct or as conduct that | 1 | 1 |
People v. Petersongreen2 sentences2020Since [People v. McIntyre, 74 Mich App 661, 665 , 254 N.W.2d 603 (1977) and People v. Hill, 86 Mich App 706 , 712- 713, 273 N.W.2d 532 (1978)], establish that the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to bind over is waived by failure to raise it below, it naturally follows that the issue of the sufficiency of the proof of the corpus delicti is similarly waived, as the latter issue is merely part of the former. [People v Peterson, 90 Mich App 345, 347 ; 282 NW2d 315, 317 (1979).] Moreover, even if the corpus delicti argument was not waived or abandoned, it nevertheless would fail under Yost 2020Since [People v. McIntyre, 74 Mich App 661, 665 , 254 N.W.2d 603 (1977) and People v. Hill, 86 Mich App 706 , 712- 713, 273 N.W.2d 532 (1978)], establish that the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to bind over is waived by failure to raise it below, it naturally follows that the issue of the sufficiency of the proof of the corpus delicti is similarly waived, as the latter issue is merely part of the former. [People v Peterson, 90 Mich App 345, 347 ; 282 NW2d 315, 317 (1979).] Moreover, even if the corpus delicti argument was not waived or abandoned, it nevertheless would fail under Yost | 1 | 1 |
Oberlies v. Searchmont Resort, Incgreen2 sentences2016Third, the defendant’s activities must be substantially connected with Michigan to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. [Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).] The record shows that the first prong of the test was met in this case. “ £[P]urposeful availment’ is something akin either to a deliberate undertaking to do or cause an act or thing to be done in Michigan or conduct which can be properly regarded as a prime generating cause of the effects resulting in Michigan, something more than a passive availment of Michigan opportunities.” Id. at 434 (quotation m 2016However, the trial court expressly found that it could exercise limited personal jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to MCL 600.715(5). -4- defendant reasonable. [Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).] The record shows that the first prong of the test was met in this case. “ ‘[P]urposeful availment’ is something akin either to a deliberate undertaking to do or cause an act or thing to be done in Michigan or conduct which can be properly regarded as a prime generating cause of the effects resulting in Michigan, something more than a passive availment of Michigan opportunities.” Id. at 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Borman, LLC v. 18718 Borman, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Chenaultgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Auto Club Insurance v. Great American Insurance Groupgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Michigan Federation of Teachers & School Related Personnel v. University of Michigangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Goggin v. Peoples Transport Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Norrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Astagreen | 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. Williams
green
2 sentences2018The family court determined that jurisdiction should be waived pursuant to MCL 712A.4. “[T]he family court retains the discretion to make the ultimate decision whether to waive jurisdiction over the juvenile.” People v Williams, 245 Mich App 427, 432 ; 628 NW2d 80 (2001). 2018The family court determined that jurisdiction should be waived pursuant to MCL 712A.4. “[T]he family court retains the discretion to make the ultimate decision whether to waive jurisdiction over the juvenile.” People v Williams, 245 Mich App 427, 432 ; 628 NW2d 80 (2001). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Century Mutual Insurance v. League General Insurance
green
2 sentences2018Under the first prong of the test, “ ’[t]he accident must have arisen out of the inherent nature of the automobile, as such.’ ” Id., quoting Appleman, § 4317, pp 367-368. 2018Under the first prong of the test, “ ’[t]he accident must have arisen out of the inherent nature of the automobile, as such.’ ” Id., quoting Appleman, § 4317, pp 367-368. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Drake v. Citizens Insurance Co. of America
green
2 sentences2018As to the second prong, “even if one of the parked-vehicle exceptions applies, it is necessary to determine whether the injury arose out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.” Drake v Citizens Ins Co of America, 270 Mich App 22, 35 ; 715 NW2d 387 (2006). 2018As to the second prong, “even if one of the parked-vehicle exceptions applies, it is necessary to determine whether the injury arose out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.” Drake v Citizens Ins Co of America, 270 Mich App 22, 35 ; 715 NW2d 387 (2006). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 690 . 2012Id. at 690 . | 2 | 2012–2016 |
McDonald v. Farm Bureau Insurance
green
2 sentences2015Because that conclusion is alone sufficient to reject plaintiffs attempt to invoke equitable estoppel, it is unnecessary to engage in ány discussion as to whether a threat of murder can alone be sufficient to meet the first prong of the test for equitable estoppel as articulated in McDonald v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 480 Mich 191, 204-205 ; 747 NW2d 811 (2008). 2015Because that conclusion is alone sufficient to reject plaintiffs attempt to invoke equitable estoppel, it is unnecessary to engage in ány discussion as to whether a threat of murder can alone be sufficient to meet the first prong of the test for equitable estoppel as articulated in McDonald v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 480 Mich 191, 204-205 ; 747 NW2d 811 (2008). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Draper v. United States
green
2 sentences1979The Court in Spinelli found the detail provided by the *24 informant in Draper v United States, 358 US 307 ; 79 S Ct 329 ; 3 L Ed 2d 327 (1959), a 'suitable benchmark’. 393 US 410, 416 . 1979The Court in Spinelli found the detail provided by the *24 informant in Draper v United States, 358 US 307 ; 79 S Ct 329 ; 3 L Ed 2d 327 (1959), a 'suitable benchmark’. 393 US 410, 416 . | 2 | 1977–1979 |
Spinelli v. United States
red
2 sentences1979"In regard to the first prong of the test, the Spinelli Court said that '[i]n the absence of a statement detailing the. manner in which the information was gathered, it is especially important that the tip describe the accused’s criminal activity in sufficient detail so that the magistrate may know that he is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation’. 393 US 410, 416 . 1977In regard to the first prong of the test, the Spinelli Court said that "[i]n the absence of a statement detailing the manner in which the information was gathered, it is especially important that the tip describe the accused's criminal activity in sufficient detail so that the magistrate may *581 know that he is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual's general reputation". 393 US 410, 416 . | 2 | 1977–1979 |
People v. Hampton
green
1 sentence2026The residence that can be seen is described as 2 white and brown trailer style residences.” Under the first prong of the test, the location of defendant’s residence “was not described with sufficient particularity to enable the executing officer to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort.” Hampton, 237 Mich App at 150 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Espn, Inc v. Michigan State University
green
2 sentences2025And, in analyzing the first prong of the test for the privacy exemption, our Supreme Court has recognized that the relevant inquiry is whether the information associated with the name is information of a personal nature. [ESPN, 311 Mich App at 666 .] On appeal, SADO notes that the above analysis is nonbinding dicta because ESPN was resolved on the second prong of the privacy exemption, not the first. 2025Specifically, the ESPN Court stated that “it is unnecessary to examine individually each report to ascertain whether the report includes information of a personal nature about the student—athletes who were identified as suspects.” Id. at 668 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Carines
green
2 sentences2024To support a finding of aiding and abetting, the prosecutor must show: (1) the crime charged was committed by the defendant or some other person, (2) the defendant performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted the commission of the crime, and (3) the defendant intended the commission of the crime or had knowledge that the principal intended its commission at the time he gave aid and encouragement. [People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 757-758 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999) (cleaned up, emphasis added).] McDaniel only challenges the first prong of this test, claiming there is insufficient evidence to su 2024To support a finding of aiding and abetting, the prosecutor must show: (1) the crime charged was committed by the defendant or some other person, (2) the defendant performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted the commission of the crime, and (3) the defendant intended the commission of the crime or had knowledge that the principal intended its commission at the time he gave aid and encouragement. [People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 757-758 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999) (cleaned up, emphasis added).] McDaniel only challenges the first prong of this test, claiming there is insufficient evidence to su | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lindsey Patrick v. Virginia B Turkelson
green
1 sentence2023Patrick, 322 Mich App at 606 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Hill
green
2 sentences2020Since [People v. McIntyre, 74 Mich App 661, 665 , 254 N.W.2d 603 (1977) and People v. Hill, 86 Mich App 706 , 712- 713, 273 N.W.2d 532 (1978)], establish that the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to bind over is waived by failure to raise it below, it naturally follows that the issue of the sufficiency of the proof of the corpus delicti is similarly waived, as the latter issue is merely part of the former. [People v Peterson, 90 Mich App 345, 347 ; 282 NW2d 315, 317 (1979).] Moreover, even if the corpus delicti argument was not waived or abandoned, it nevertheless would fail under Yost 2020Since [People v. McIntyre, 74 Mich App 661, 665 , 254 N.W.2d 603 (1977) and People v. Hill, 86 Mich App 706 , 712- 713, 273 N.W.2d 532 (1978)], establish that the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to bind over is waived by failure to raise it below, it naturally follows that the issue of the sufficiency of the proof of the corpus delicti is similarly waived, as the latter issue is merely part of the former. [People v Peterson, 90 Mich App 345, 347 ; 282 NW2d 315, 317 (1979).] Moreover, even if the corpus delicti argument was not waived or abandoned, it nevertheless would fail under Yost | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. McIntyre
green
2 sentences2020Since [People v. McIntyre, 74 Mich App 661, 665 , 254 N.W.2d 603 (1977) and People v. Hill, 86 Mich App 706 , 712- 713, 273 N.W.2d 532 (1978)], establish that the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to bind over is waived by failure to raise it below, it naturally follows that the issue of the sufficiency of the proof of the corpus delicti is similarly waived, as the latter issue is merely part of the former. [People v Peterson, 90 Mich App 345, 347 ; 282 NW2d 315, 317 (1979).] Moreover, even if the corpus delicti argument was not waived or abandoned, it nevertheless would fail under Yost 2020Since [People v. McIntyre, 74 Mich App 661, 665 , 254 N.W.2d 603 (1977) and People v. Hill, 86 Mich App 706 , 712- 713, 273 N.W.2d 532 (1978)], establish that the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to bind over is waived by failure to raise it below, it naturally follows that the issue of the sufficiency of the proof of the corpus delicti is similarly waived, as the latter issue is merely part of the former. [People v Peterson, 90 Mich App 345, 347 ; 282 NW2d 315, 317 (1979).] Moreover, even if the corpus delicti argument was not waived or abandoned, it nevertheless would fail under Yost | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Brown v. Brown
green
1 sentence2020Under Hamed v Wayne Co, 490 Mich 1, 12 (2011), an employer may be held vicariously liable for an employee’s criminal conduct when “an employer had (1) actual or constructive knowledge of prior similar conduct and (2) actual or constructive knowledge of the employee’s propensity to act in accordance with that conduct.” To satisfy the first prong of this test, there must be sufficient similarity between the prior conduct of the employee and the conduct at issue as to lead a reasonable employer to recognize the prior conduct as an “inevitable prelude” to criminal sexual conduct or as conduct that | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Padilla v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2019The measure of an attorney’s performance under the first prong of the analysis is “simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.” Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356, 366 ; 130 S Ct 1473 ; 176 L Ed 2d 284 (2010) (citation omitted). 2019The measure of an attorney’s performance under the first prong of the analysis is “simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.” Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356, 366 ; 130 S Ct 1473 ; 176 L Ed 2d 284 (2010) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
W H Froh, Inc v. Domanski
green
1 sentence2019With regard to the first prong of the analysis, “purposeful availment” is “a deliberate undertaking to do or cause an act or thing to be done in Michigan.” Id. at 230-231 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Vargas v. Hong Jin Crown Corp.
neutral
2 sentences2019“The defendant must deliberately engage in significant activities within a state, or create continuing obligations between himself and residents of the forum to the extent that it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum as well.” Vargas v Hong Jin Crown Corp, 247 Mich App 278, 285 ; 636 NW2d 291 (2001) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 2019“The defendant must deliberately engage in significant activities within a state, or create continuing obligations between himself and residents of the forum to the extent that it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum as well.” Vargas v Hong Jin Crown Corp, 247 Mich App 278, 285 ; 636 NW2d 291 (2001) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Ryan
green
1 sentence2016Although concurrent sentencing is “the norm,” Ryan, 295 Mich App at 401 , consecutive sentencing was authorized by statute for the reasons explained above. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Gioglio
green
2 sentences2016Under the first prong of this test, “a reviewing court must conclude that the act or omission of the defendant’s trial counsel fell within the range of reasonable professional conduct if, after affirmatively entertaining the range of possible reasons for the act or omission under the facts known to the reviewing court, there might have been a legitimate strategic reason 1 The jury acquitted defendant of an additional charge of maintaining a drug house, MCL 333.7405(1)(d). -1- for the act or omission.” People v Gioglio (On Remand), 296 Mich App 12, 22-23 ; 815 NW2d 589 (2012), remanded for rese 2016Under the first prong of this test, “a reviewing court must conclude that the act or omission of the defendant’s trial counsel fell within the range of reasonable professional conduct if, after affirmatively entertaining the range of possible reasons for the act or omission under the facts known to the reviewing court, there might have been a legitimate strategic reason 1 The jury acquitted defendant of an additional charge of maintaining a drug house, MCL 333.7405(1)(d). -1- for the act or omission.” People v Gioglio (On Remand), 296 Mich App 12, 22-23 ; 815 NW2d 589 (2012), remanded for rese | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Gillette Commercial Operations North America & Subsidiaries v. Department of Treasury green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Advisory Opinion Re Constitutionality of PA 1966, No 346
green
2 sentences2016In resolving this question, the League Gen Ins Court reviewed In re Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of 1966 PA 346 , 380 Mich 554 ; 158 NW2d 416 (1968), wherein the Court “had to ascertain whether the ‘state’ housing development authority was an instrumentality of state government.” League Gen Ins, 435 Mich at 344 . 2016In resolving this question, the League Gen Ins Court reviewed In re Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of 1966 PA 346 , 380 Mich 554 ; 158 NW2d 416 (1968), wherein the Court “had to ascertain whether the ‘state’ housing development authority was an instrumentality of state government.” League Gen Ins, 435 Mich at 344 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| League General Insurance v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass'n green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Mager v. Department of State Police green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Vaughn green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Russell green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Allstate Insurance v. McCarn green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. Cress green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Herald Co. v. City of Bay City green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v Johnson green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Caterpillar, Inc v. Department of Treasury green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Allstate Insurance v. Freeman green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Khalaf v. Bankers & Shippers Insurance green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Miklik v. Michigan Special MacHine Co. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Jeffrey v. Rapid American Corp. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Roupe green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Legrone green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Milbourn red | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Hoshowski green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| People v. Farrar green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| People v. Cherry green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.