7 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Fieldsgreen2 sentences2016However, I agree with Judge O’Connell’s concern “about I Prior to Lockridge, our Supreme Court held that the “reasons justifying departure [under the substantial and compelling test] should ‘keenly’ or ‘irresistibly’ grab our attention.” People v Fields, 448 Mich. 58, 67 ; 528 N.W.2d 176, 186 (1995). 2016However, I agree with Judge O’Connell’s concern “about I Prior to Lockridge, our Supreme Court held that the “reasons justifying departure [under the substantial and compelling test] should ‘keenly’ or ‘irresistibly’ grab our attention.” People v Fields, 448 Mich. 58, 67 ; 528 N.W.2d 176, 186 (1995). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Mason
green
2 sentences2017Further, while it is true that an incarcerated parent does not need to personally care for the child, and instead can provide proper care and custody through placement with a relative, id. at 161 n 11, Hibbert was not a relative. 2017Further, while it is true that an incarcerated parent does not need to personally care for the child, and instead can provide proper care and custody through placement with a relative, id. at 161 n 11, Hibbert was not a relative. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Lockridge
green
2 sentences2016In Lockridge, 498 Mich at 364-365 , the Court also struck down “the requirement in MCL 769.34(3) that a sentencing court that departs from the applicable guidelines range must articulate a substantial and compelling reason for that departure.” Instead of the substantial and compelling standard, “[a] sentence that departs from the applicable guidelines range will be reviewed by an appellate court for reasonableness.” Id. at 392 . 2016In Lockridge, 498 Mich at 364-365 , the Court also struck down “the requirement in MCL 769.34(3) that a sentencing court that departs from the applicable guidelines range must articulate a substantial and compelling reason for that departure.” Instead of the substantial and compelling standard, “[a] sentence that departs from the applicable guidelines range will be reviewed by an appellate court for reasonableness.” Id. at 392 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Milbourn
red
2 sentences2016In People v Steanhouse, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2015) (Docket No. 318329); slip op, pp 21-25, this Court held that the reasonableness of a sentence is determined by using the “principle of proportionality” standard set forth in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). 2016In People v Steanhouse, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2015) (Docket No. 318329); slip op, pp 21-25, this Court held that the reasonableness of a sentence is determined by using the “principle of proportionality” standard set forth in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Jerome Crosby
green
1 sentence2016This Court stated: Given that Lockridge overturned the substantial and compelling reason standard . . . which was in place at the time of defendant’s sentencing, and given our conclusion that the principle of proportionality established under Milbourn and its progeny is now the appropriate standard by which a defendant’s sentence should be reviewed, we also find that the procedure articulated in Lockridge, and modeled on that adopted in United States v Crosby, 397 F3d 103 (CA 2, 2005), should apply here. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.