Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1908–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hagos v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2018By comparison, the ineffective assistance inquiry on collateral review does not involve the correction of an error by the district court, but focuses more broadly on the duty of counsel to raise critical issues for that court’s consideration.”); see also Hagos v People, 288 P3d 116, 121 ; 2012 CO 63 (Colo, 2012) (“The two claims serve different purposes and each requires an independent, fact-specific analysis. 2018By comparison, the ineffective assistance inquiry on collateral review does not involve the correction of an error by the district court, but focuses more broadly on the duty of counsel to raise critical issues for that court’s consideration.”); see also Hagos v People, 288 P3d 116, 121 ; 2012 CO 63 (Colo, 2012) (“The two claims serve different purposes and each requires an independent, fact-specific analysis. | 2 | 2 |
Rose v. Rosegreen2 sentences2021Such language “has its origin in the inherent power of a court of general jurisdiction to correct orders improperly entered,” and “[i]n exercising such power, courts balance the policy favoring the correction of error and the policy favoring the finality of judgments.” Id.; see also Rose v Rose, 289 Mich App 45, 58 ; 795 NW2d 611 (2010) (“Well-settled policy considerations favoring finality of judgments circumscribe relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1).”). 2021Such language “has its origin in the inherent power of a court of general jurisdiction to correct orders improperly entered,” and “[i]n exercising such power, courts balance the policy favoring the correction of error and the policy favoring the finality of judgments.” Id.; see also Rose v Rose, 289 Mich App 45, 58 ; 795 NW2d 611 (2010) (“Well-settled policy considerations favoring finality of judgments circumscribe relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1).”). | 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. Alexander
green
1 sentence2019Moreover, because the correction of the error would result in reduced punishment and was not (as in Thomas) carried out without notice or a hearing, we held that it was “extremely unlikely” that the trial court in that case would impose a shorter sentence on the defendant if he was given a full resentencing, and that “a full resentencing would be unnecessary and would waste the resources of the courts.” Id. at 678 .4 We conclude that Alexander does not compel us to hold that the trial court erred by conducting a full resentencing. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kokx v. Bylenga
green
2 sentences2018The moving party must demonstrate a palpable error by which the court and the parties have been misled and show that a different disposition of the motion must result from the correction of the error.” Thus, ultimately, “[a] court’s decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is an exercise of discretion.” Kokx v Bylenga, 241 Mich App 655, 658 ; 617 NW2d 368 (2000). 2018The moving party must demonstrate a palpable error by which the court and the parties have been misled and show that a different disposition of the motion must result from the correction of the error.” Thus, ultimately, “[a] court’s decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is an exercise of discretion.” Kokx v Bylenga, 241 Mich App 655, 658 ; 617 NW2d 368 (2000). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Carines
green
1 sentence2018The [plain-error analysis] addresses whether the prejudice resulted from the trial court’s acts or omissions, while the ineffective assistance claim examines whether prejudice resulted from counsel’s acts or omissions.”). 17 Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . 18 The inverse is true as well. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Delamielleure v. Belote
green
1 sentence2009More importantly, “insertion of language mandated by court rule constitutes a correction of an error arising from oversight, which may be corrected at any time, including on the court’s own initiative under MCR 2.612(C)(1).” Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Pratt v. Davis
neutral
1 sentence1908It was said in Pratt v. Montcalm Circuit Judge, 105 Mich. 499 : “ It is a question of acknowledged difficulty to ascertain in just what cases an amendment may be said to set out a new cause of action.” We think, however,, the true test is whether the effort is to introduce what is a new subject of controversy or on the other hand to either amplify or correct the statement of the cause of action originally intended, and which is the real subject of controversy between the parties. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.