7 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1970–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hoag
green
2 sentences2021Therefore, defendant has failed to establish the factual predicate of his claim, see Hoag, 460 Mich at 6 . 2021Therefore, defendant has failed to establish the factual predicate of his claim, see Hoag, 460 Mich at 6 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Antoine
green
1 sentence2025On appeal, defendant contends that the identified portions of the first sentencing hearing establish that the trial judge showed bias or prejudice, as contemplated by MCR 2.003(C)(1)(a), or the appearance of impropriety, as contemplated by Canon 2(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. -11- The trial judge did not behave improperly at the sentencing after defendant’s first trial, as judges are permitted to make “comments against felonious, antisocial behavior” and their language “need not be tepid.” Antoine, 194 Mich App at 191 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Quintanilla
green
1 sentence2022However, the trial court adjourned the first sentencing hearing in order to obtain the Indiana police report.4 See Quintanilla, 225 Mich App at 479 n 3. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Pena
green
2 sentences2019Defendant contends that the prosecution’s actions violate our Supreme Court’s ruling in People v Pena, 383 Mich 402, 406 ; 175 NW2d 767 (1970) (opinion by KAVANAGH, J.) (“A prosecutor may impeach a witness in court but he may not intimidate him—in or out of court.”). 2019Defendant contends that the prosecution’s actions violate our Supreme Court’s ruling in People v Pena, 383 Mich 402, 406 ; 175 NW2d 767 (1970) (opinion by KAVANAGH, J.) (“A prosecutor may impeach a witness in court but he may not intimidate him—in or out of court.”). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Konopka (On Remand)
green
1 sentence2018Initially, we note that “ ‘[a]n appellant may not merely announce his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, nor may he give only cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting authority.’ ” Konopka, 309 Mich App at 366 , quoting People v Kelly, 231 2 The trial court provided this rationale during the first sentencing hearing that took place on April 1, 2015. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Parm
green
1 sentence1970The majority mentions justification in the record for increasing the sentence upon retrial present in Poole and here which was not present in Mulier and I suppose in Parm, supra. After a careful review of the record in this case, I fail to find anything that might legitimately be taken into consideration in sentencing which was not known to the judge at the first sentencing hearing in March of 1963. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.