324 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2026 128 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pierron v. Pierrongreen2 sentences2026STANDARDS OF REVIEW “To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28; see also Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81, 85 ; 782 NW2d 480 (2010). 2026STANDARDS OF REVIEW “To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28; see also Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81, 85 ; 782 NW2d 480 (2010). | 15 | 57 |
Fletcher v. Fletchergreen2 sentences2025MCL 722.28 requires an appellate court to affirm a circuit court’s custody order “unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” “When a court incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law, it commits legal error that the appellate court is bound to correct.” Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 882 ; 526 NW2d 889 (1994). purposes of this factor any reasonable action taken by a parent to protect a child or that parent from sexual assault or domestic violence by the child 2025MCL 722.28 requires an appellate court to affirm a circuit court’s custody order “unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” “When a court incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law, it commits legal error that the appellate court is bound to correct.” Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 882 ; 526 NW2d 889 (1994). purposes of this factor any reasonable action taken by a parent to protect a child or that parent from sexual assault or domestic violence by the child | 7 | 49 |
Shade v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2026We disagree with both arguments. -10- As with custody orders, “ ‘[o]rders concerning parenting time must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue.’ ” Shade v Wright, 291 Mich App 17, 20-21 ; 805 NW2d 1 (2010) (citation omitted). 2026We disagree with both arguments. -10- As with custody orders, “ ‘[o]rders concerning parenting time must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue.’ ” Shade v Wright, 291 Mich App 17, 20-21 ; 805 NW2d 1 (2010) (citation omitted). | 6 | 43 |
Brausch v. Brauschgreen2 sentences2018“To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28; see also Brausch v Brausch, 283 Mich App 339, 347 ; 770 NW2d 77 (2009). 2018“To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28; see also Brausch v Brausch, 283 Mich App 339, 347 ; 770 NW2d 77 (2009). | 2 | 5 |
Dailey v. Kloenhamergreen2 sentences2025STANDARDS OF REVIEW “[I]n child-custody disputes, ‘all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of the evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.’ ” Dailey v Kloenhamer, 291 Mich App 660, 664 ; 811 NW2d 501 (2011), quoting MCL 722.28. 2025STANDARDS OF REVIEW “[I]n child-custody disputes, ‘all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of the evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.’ ” Dailey v Kloenhamer, 291 Mich App 660, 664 ; 811 NW2d 501 (2011), quoting MCL 722.28. | 1 | 34 |
Pickering v. Pickeringgreen2 sentences2024PARENTING TIME Consistent with the principle of promoting a child’s best interests, MCL 722.25(1), and with the goal of expeditiously resolving a child custody dispute, MCL 722.28, all “[o]rders concerning parenting time must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue,” Pickering v Pickering, 268 Mich App 1, 5 ; 706 NW2d 835 (2005). 2024PARENTING TIME Consistent with the principle of promoting a child’s best interests, MCL 722.25(1), and with the goal of expeditiously resolving a child custody dispute, MCL 722.28, all “[o]rders concerning parenting time must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue,” Pickering v Pickering, 268 Mich App 1, 5 ; 706 NW2d 835 (2005). | 1 | 22 |
Mitchell v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2023“All custody orders must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, made findings against the great weight of the evidence, or made a clear legal error.” Mitchell v Mitchell, 296 Mich App 513, 517 ; 823 NW2d 153 (2012). 2023“All custody orders must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, made findings against the great weight of the evidence, or made a clear legal error.” Mitchell v Mitchell, 296 Mich App 513, 517 ; 823 NW2d 153 (2012). | 1 | 14 |
Corporan v. Hentongreen2 sentences2022“This Court reviews a trial court’s determination regarding whether a party has demonstrated proper cause or a change of circumstances under the great weight of the evidence standard,” which requires deference to the trial court’s factual findings unless the evidence “clearly preponderate[s] in the opposite direction.” Corporan v Henton, 282 Mich App 599, 605 ; 766 NW2d 903 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2022“This Court reviews a trial court’s determination regarding whether a party has demonstrated proper cause or a change of circumstances under the great weight of the evidence standard,” which requires deference to the trial court’s factual findings unless the evidence “clearly preponderate[s] in the opposite direction.” Corporan v Henton, 282 Mich App 599, 605 ; 766 NW2d 903 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 14 |
Sulaica v. Romettygreen2 sentences2023See Sulaica v Rometty, 308 Mich App 568, 585 ; 866 NW2d 838 (2014) (A trial court’s clear legal error generally requires remand for further consideration under the proper legal framework unless the error was harmless). 2019“A trial court commits legal error when it incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law.” Sulaica v Rometty, 308 Mich App 568, 577 ; 866 NW2d 838 (2014). | 1 | 12 |
Pierron v. Pierrongreen2 sentences2022“All custody orders must be affirmed on appeal unless the circuit court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the circuit court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the circuit court made a clear legal error on a major issue.” Pierron v Pierron, 282 Mich App 222, 242 ; 765 NW2d 345 (2009), aff’d 486 Mich 81 (2010), citing MCL 722.28. 2022“All custody orders must be affirmed on appeal unless the circuit court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the circuit court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the circuit court made a clear legal error on a major issue.” Pierron v Pierron, 282 Mich App 222, 242 ; 765 NW2d 345 (2009), aff’d 486 Mich 81 (2010), citing MCL 722.28. | 1 | 10 |
Rains v. Rainsgreen2 sentences2025In Rains, 301 Mich App at 331 , this Court explained that a trial court’s clear legal error generally requires remand for further consideration under the proper legal framework. 2023This Court reviews questions of law de novo. [Rains v Rains, 301 Mich App 313, 324-325 ; 836 NW2d 709 (2013) (quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted).] In addition, pursuant to MCL 722.28, this Court must affirm all judgments and orders on appeal “unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of the evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” Safdar v Aziz, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 358877); slip op at 5 (quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 4 |
Bahr v. Bahrgreen2 sentences1981Bahr v Bahr; 60 Mich App 354, 360 ; 230 NW2d 430 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 794 (1975), Outcalt v Outcalt, 40 Mich App 392, 394 ; 198 NW2d 779 (1972). 1981Bahr v Bahr; 60 Mich App 354, 360 ; 230 NW2d 430 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 794 (1975), Outcalt v Outcalt, 40 Mich App 392, 394 ; 198 NW2d 779 (1972). | 1 | 4 |
Maier v. Maiergreen2 sentences2024STANDARD OF REVIEW Under MCL 722.28 of the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq., “[t]o expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28 incorporates three standards of review into the act: (1) “a reviewing court should not substitute its judgment on questions of fact unless the factual determination clearly p 2024STANDARD OF REVIEW Under MCL 722.28 of the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq., “[t]o expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28 incorporates three standards of review into the act: (1) “a reviewing court should not substitute its judgment on questions of fact unless the factual determination clearly p | 1 | 3 |
Borowsky v. Borowskygreen2 sentences2015“Although appellate review of parenting-time orders is de novo, this Court must affirm the trial court unless its findings of fact were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue.” Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 716 ; 747 NW2d 336 (2008), citing MCL 722.28 and Borowsky v Borowsky, 273 Mich App 666, 688 ; 733 NW2d 71 (2007). 2015However, a parenting time order should be affirmed “unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of the evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28; see also Borowsky, 273 Mich App at 688 . | 1 | 3 |
| Truitt v. Truittgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Theroux v. Doerrgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Jack v. Jackgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mauro v. Maurogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Berger v. Berger
green
2 sentences2026STANDARD OF REVIEW “This Court must affirm all custody orders unless the trial court’s findings of fact were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue.” Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 705 ; 747 NW2d 336 (2008). 2026STANDARD OF REVIEW “This Court must affirm all custody orders unless the trial court’s findings of fact were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue.” Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 705 ; 747 NW2d 336 (2008). | 19 | 2009–2026 |
Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer
green
2 sentences2024A trial court commits clear legal error when it incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law. [Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 507-508 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (cleaned up).] “All custody orders must be affirmed on appeal unless the circuit court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the circuit court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the circuit court made a clear legal error on a major issue.” Lieberman v Orr, 319 Mich App 68 , 76- 77; 900 NW2d 130 (2017) (cleaned up). 2024A trial court commits clear legal error when it incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law. [Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 507-508 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (cleaned up).] “All custody orders must be affirmed on appeal unless the circuit court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the circuit court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the circuit court made a clear legal error on a major issue.” Lieberman v Orr, 319 Mich App 68 , 76- 77; 900 NW2d 130 (2017) (cleaned up). | 17 | 2005–2025 |
William L Luna v. Carrie Marie Regnier
green
2 sentences2026“Orders concerning parenting time must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial -8- court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue.” Luna v Regnier, 326 Mich App 173, 179 ; 930 NW2d 410 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2026“Orders concerning parenting time must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial -8- court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue.” Luna v Regnier, 326 Mich App 173, 179 ; 930 NW2d 410 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 8 | 2022–2026 |
Pernell v. ALLLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
green
2 sentences2025A clear legal error occurs when a court “incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law.” McIntosh v McIntosh, 282 Mich App 471, 475 ; 768 NW2d 325 (2009). 2024A finding of fact is against the great weight of the evidence if the evidence adduced at the hearing “clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.” McIntosh v McIntosh, 282 Mich App 471, 474 ; 768 NW2d 325 (2009).3 This Court reviews a trial court’s custody decision for an abuse of discretion. | 8 | 2015–2025 |
McIntosh v. McIntosh
green
2 sentences2025A clear legal error occurs when a court “incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law.” McIntosh v McIntosh, 282 Mich App 471, 475 ; 768 NW2d 325 (2009). 2024A finding of fact is against the great weight of the evidence if the evidence adduced at the hearing “clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.” McIntosh v McIntosh, 282 Mich App 471, 474 ; 768 NW2d 325 (2009).3 This Court reviews a trial court’s custody decision for an abuse of discretion. | 8 | 2015–2025 |
Keenan v. Dawson
green
2 sentences2021A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW In a recent case involving requested visitation by a nonparent relative—a grandparent— this Court provided the following summary of law regarding the appropriate standards of review: “Orders concerning [grand]parenting time must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue.” Keenan v Dawson, 275 Mich App 671, 679 ; 739 NW2d 681 (2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2021A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW In a recent case involving requested visitation by a nonparent relative—a grandparent— this Court provided the following summary of law regarding the appropriate standards of review: “Orders concerning [grand]parenting time must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue.” Keenan v Dawson, 275 Mich App 671, 679 ; 739 NW2d 681 (2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 8 | 2015–2021 |
Kubicki v. Sharpe
green
2 sentences2025“A clear legal error occurs when the circuit court incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law.” Kubicki v Sharpe, 306 Mich App 525, 538 ; 858 NW2d 57 (2014) (quotation marks, citation, and ellipsis omitted). 2025“A clear legal error occurs when the circuit court incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law.” Kubicki v Sharpe, 306 Mich App 525, 538 ; 858 NW2d 57 (2014) (quotation marks, citation, and ellipsis omitted). | 7 | 2016–2025 |
Phillips v. Jordan
green
2 sentences2017A trial court commits clear legal error when it incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law. [Phillips v Jordan, 241 Mich App 17, 20 ; 614 NW2d 183 (2000) (citations omitted).] The Child Custody Act provides the standard of review applicable to this matter: To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of the evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue. [ 2017A trial court commits clear legal error when it incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law. [Phillips v Jordan, 241 Mich App 17, 20 ; 614 NW2d 183 (2000) (citations omitted).] The Child Custody Act provides the standard of review applicable to this matter: To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of the evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue. [ | 6 | 2009–2023 |
Butler v. Simmons-Butler
green
2 sentences2017“A custody order ‘shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.’ ” Butler v Simmons-Butler, 308 Mich App 195, 200 ; 863 NW2d 677 (2014), quoting MCL 722.28. 2017“A custody order ‘shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.’ ” Butler v Simmons-Butler, 308 Mich App 195, 200 ; 863 NW2d 677 (2014), quoting MCL 722.28. | 5 | 2016–2017 |
Feldman v. Feldman
green
2 sentences1979As indicated in MCL 722.28; MSA 25.312(8): "To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” See also Feldman v Feldman, 55 Mich App 147 ; 222 NW2d 2 (1974), Radway v Radway, 81 Mich App 328 ; 265 NW2d 202 (1978). 1979As indicated in MCL 722.28; MSA 25.312(8): "To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” See also Feldman v Feldman, 55 Mich App 147 ; 222 NW2d 2 (1974), Radway v Radway, 81 Mich App 328 ; 265 NW2d 202 (1978). | 4 | 1975–1980 |
Bowers v. Bowers
green
2 sentences2015F. Kelly and Stephens, JJ., concurred. 1 Section 8 of the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.28, states: To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue. 2 See Foskett v Foskett, 247 Mich App 1, 9 ; 634 NW2d 363 (2001); Bowers v Bowers, 190 Mich App 51, 54-55 ; 475 NW2d 394 (1991); Daniels v Daniels, 165 Mich App 726, 730 ; 41 2015F. Kelly and Stephens, JJ., concurred. 1 Section 8 of the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.28, states: To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue. 2 See Foskett v Foskett, 247 Mich App 1, 9 ; 634 NW2d 363 (2001); Bowers v Bowers, 190 Mich App 51, 54-55 ; 475 NW2d 394 (1991); Daniels v Daniels, 165 Mich App 726, 730 ; 41 | 3 | 2000–2020 |
Foskett v. Foskett
green
2 sentences2015F. Kelly and Stephens, JJ., concurred. 1 Section 8 of the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.28, states: To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue. 2 See Foskett v Foskett, 247 Mich App 1, 9 ; 634 NW2d 363 (2001); Bowers v Bowers, 190 Mich App 51, 54-55 ; 475 NW2d 394 (1991); Daniels v Daniels, 165 Mich App 726, 730 ; 41 2015F. Kelly and Stephens, JJ., concurred. 1 Section 8 of the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.28, states: To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue. 2 See Foskett v Foskett, 247 Mich App 1, 9 ; 634 NW2d 363 (2001); Bowers v Bowers, 190 Mich App 51, 54-55 ; 475 NW2d 394 (1991); Daniels v Daniels, 165 Mich App 726, 730 ; 41 | 3 | 2015–2019 |
Booth v. Booth
green
2 sentences2019“The Child Custody Act of 1970, MCL 722.21 et seq., governs child custody disputes between parents, agencies or third parties.” Booth v Booth, 194 Mich App 284, 292 ; 486 NW2d 116 (1992). 2019“The Child Custody Act of 1970, MCL 722.21 et seq., governs child custody disputes between parents, agencies or third parties.” Booth v Booth, 194 Mich App 284, 292 ; 486 NW2d 116 (1992). | 3 | 1992–2019 |
Brown v. Loveman
green
2 sentences2018We review a parenting-time order de novo, but we “will not reverse the order unless the trial court made findings of fact against the great weight of the evidence, committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or committed a clear legal error.” Brown v Loveman, 260 Mich App 576, 591-592 ; 680 NW2d 432 (2004). 2018We review a parenting-time order de novo, but we “will not reverse the order unless the trial court made findings of fact against the great weight of the evidence, committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or committed a clear legal error.” Brown v Loveman, 260 Mich App 576, 591-592 ; 680 NW2d 432 (2004). | 3 | 2007–2018 |
Zawilanski v. Marshall
green
2 sentences2017This Court recently summarized the applicable law in situations where a parent challenges a circuit court’s decision to grant a grandparent’s motion for grandparenting time in Zawilanski v Marshall, 317 Mich App 43, 48-50 ; ___ NW2d ___ (2016), stating, in relevant part, as follows: “Orders concerning [grand]parenting time must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue.” Keenan v Dawson, 275 Mich App 671, 679 ; 739 NW2d 681 (200 2017This Court recently summarized the applicable law in situations where a parent challenges a circuit court’s decision to grant a grandparent’s motion for grandparenting time in Zawilanski v Marshall, 317 Mich App 43, 48-50 ; ___ NW2d ___ (2016), stating, in relevant part, as follows: “Orders concerning [grand]parenting time must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue.” Keenan v Dawson, 275 Mich App 671, 679 ; 739 NW2d 681 (200 | 3 | 2017–2017 |
| LaFleche v. Ybarra green | 3 | 2001–2015 |
Arndt v. Kasem
green
2 sentences2015F. Kelly and Stephens, JJ., concurred. 1 Section 8 of the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.28, states: To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue. 2 See Foskett v Foskett, 247 Mich App 1, 9 ; 634 NW2d 363 (2001); Bowers v Bowers, 190 Mich App 51, 54-55 ; 475 NW2d 394 (1991); Daniels v Daniels, 165 Mich App 726, 730 ; 41 2015F. Kelly and Stephens, JJ., concurred. 1 Section 8 of the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.28, states: To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue. 2 See Foskett v Foskett, 247 Mich App 1, 9 ; 634 NW2d 363 (2001); Bowers v Bowers, 190 Mich App 51, 54-55 ; 475 NW2d 394 (1991); Daniels v Daniels, 165 Mich App 726, 730 ; 41 | 3 | 1986–2015 |
| Harvey v. Harvey green | 3 | 2005–2007 |
| Stringer v. Vincent green | 3 | 1987–1987 |
| DeGrow v. DeGrow green | 3 | 1982–1983 |
| Outcalt v. Outcalt green | 3 | 1980–1981 |
| Radway v. Radway neutral | 3 | 1978–1980 |
| In Re AP green | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| Dowd v. Dowd green | 2 | 1981–2015 |
| Harvey v. Harvey green | 2 | 2005–2007 |
| Thames v. Thames green | 2 | 1992–1993 |
| Beason v. Beason green | 2 | 1993–1993 |
| Baker v. Baker green | 2 | 1984–1991 |
| Hensley v. Hensley neutral | 2 | 1981–1982 |
| Baldwin v. Baldwin neutral | 2 | 1975–1980 |
| Parrott v. Parrott green | 2 | 1975–1980 |
| Hilbert v. Hilbert green | 2 | 1975–1980 |
| Sinicropi v. Mazurek green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Hunter v. Hunter green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Frowner v. Smith green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Mary Ilene McRoberts v. Kyle Andrew Ferguson green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Fisher v. Fisher green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Cochrane v. Brown green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Tierney green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Graham v. Foster green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.