7 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reed v. Reedgreen2 sentences2025See also Reed v Reed, 265 Mich App 131, 160 ; 693 NW2d 825 (2005) (holding that the defendant waived her challenge to the admission of evidence by failing to furnish this Court with a record of the trial court’s decision). 2025See also Reed v Reed, 265 Mich App 131, 160 ; 693 NW2d 825 (2005) (holding that the defendant waived her challenge to the admission of evidence by failing to furnish this Court with a record of the trial court’s decision). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 455798green1 sentence2004See, e.g., United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 190 (C.A.6, 1992) ("[A]n appeal of a Rule 608(b) ruling is precluded where the defendant did not testify at trial."); United States v. Ortiz, 857 F.2d 900, 906 (C.A.2, 1988) (the defendant waived his challenge to the trial court's adverse ruling in limine on Rule 404(b) motion by failing to insist on right to fully present "personal use" argument at trial); United States v. Griffin, 818 F.2d 97, 103-105 (C.A.1, 1987) ("[ T]o raise and preserve for review the claim of improperly constructing the Rule 403 balance, a party must obtain the order | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robert M. Weichert, Timberline East, Adirondack Wood Stove Works, Inc.green1 sentence2004See, e.g., United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 190 (C.A.6, 1992) ("[A]n appeal of a Rule 608(b) ruling is precluded where the defendant did not testify at trial."); United States v. Ortiz, 857 F.2d 900, 906 (C.A.2, 1988) (the defendant waived his challenge to the trial court's adverse ruling in limine on Rule 404(b) motion by failing to insist on right to fully present "personal use" argument at trial); United States v. Griffin, 818 F.2d 97, 103-105 (C.A.1, 1987) ("[ T]o raise and preserve for review the claim of improperly constructing the Rule 403 balance, a party must obtain the order | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Barry J. Griffingreen1 sentence2004See, e.g., United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 190 (C.A.6, 1992) ("[A]n appeal of a Rule 608(b) ruling is precluded where the defendant did not testify at trial."); United States v. Ortiz, 857 F.2d 900, 906 (C.A.2, 1988) (the defendant waived his challenge to the trial court's adverse ruling in limine on Rule 404(b) motion by failing to insist on right to fully present "personal use" argument at trial); United States v. Griffin, 818 F.2d 97, 103-105 (C.A.1, 1987) ("[ T]o raise and preserve for review the claim of improperly constructing the Rule 403 balance, a party must obtain the order | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Marilyn Ortizgreen1 sentence2004See, e.g., United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 190 (C.A.6, 1992) ("[A]n appeal of a Rule 608(b) ruling is precluded where the defendant did not testify at trial."); United States v. Ortiz, 857 F.2d 900, 906 (C.A.2, 1988) (the defendant waived his challenge to the trial court's adverse ruling in limine on Rule 404(b) motion by failing to insist on right to fully present "personal use" argument at trial); United States v. Griffin, 818 F.2d 97, 103-105 (C.A.1, 1987) ("[ T]o raise and preserve for review the claim of improperly constructing the Rule 403 balance, a party must obtain the order | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Carl Jennings and John Steppgreen1 sentence2004See, e.g., United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 190 (C.A.6, 1992) ("[A]n appeal of a Rule 608(b) ruling is precluded where the defendant did not testify at trial."); United States v. Ortiz, 857 F.2d 900, 906 (C.A.2, 1988) (the defendant waived his challenge to the trial court's adverse ruling in limine on Rule 404(b) motion by failing to insist on right to fully present "personal use" argument at trial); United States v. Griffin, 818 F.2d 97, 103-105 (C.A.1, 1987) ("[ T]o raise and preserve for review the claim of improperly constructing the Rule 403 balance, a party must obtain the order | 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. Green
green
2 sentences2026In People v Green, 228 Mich App 684, 691 ; 580 NW2d 444 (1998), the defendant waived his challenge to his felon-in- possession conviction because the parties stipulated to his earlier felony conviction, and he did not object to the trial court’s instruction about that stipulation. 2026In People v Green, 228 Mich App 684, 691 ; 580 NW2d 444 (1998), the defendant waived his challenge to his felon-in- possession conviction because the parties stipulated to his earlier felony conviction, and he did not object to the trial court’s instruction about that stipulation. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Michelle Renee Fairley v. Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence2024In Fairley, 497 Mich at 300 , the plaintiff argued that the defendant waived its claim for summary disposition on the basis of notice when it failed to raise the issue as an affirmative defense. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Kelly-Nevils v. Detroit Receiving Hospital
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 419-420 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Gusler v. Fairview Tubular Products
green
2 sentences1988It appears that the defendant raised and preserved the benefit rate issue in these proceedings or the proceedings below 1 and that Gusler v Fairview Tubular Products, 412 Mich 270 ; 315 NW2d 388 (1981), in terms applies to payments made after December 30, 1981. 1988It appears that the defendant raised and preserved the benefit rate issue in these proceedings or the proceedings below 1 and that Gusler v Fairview Tubular Products, 412 Mich 270 ; 315 NW2d 388 (1981), in terms applies to payments made after December 30, 1981. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1983In People v Alvin Johnson, 396 Mich 424, 444 ; 240 NW2d 729 (1976), the Supreme Court recognized that a defense "grounded in the due process clause” is not waived by a guilty plea. 1983In People v Alvin Johnson, 396 Mich 424, 444 ; 240 NW2d 729 (1976), the Supreme Court recognized that a defense "grounded in the due process clause” is not waived by a guilty plea. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.