7 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hattgreen2 sentences1981See People v Hatt, 384 Mich 302 ; 181 NW2d 912 (1970), People v Stratton, 13 Mich App 350 ; 164 NW2d 555 (1968). 1981See People v Hatt, 384 Mich 302 ; 181 NW2d 912 (1970), People v Stratton, 13 Mich App 350 ; 164 NW2d 555 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fountaingreen1 sentence1981Because all of the operative facts in the instant case occurred after the date that Fountain was decided, the issue of Fountain’s retroactive application is not involved. 2 Concerning the time in which a supplemental information must be filed, the Fountain decision begins by restating the long standing rule that "[a] prosecutor who knows a person has a prior felony record must promptly proceed, if at all, against the person as an habitual offender.” People v Fountain, supra, 98. | 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. Pipes
green
2 sentences2021People v Pipes, 475 Mich 267 , 278 n 39; 715 NW2d 290 (2006). 2021People v Pipes, 475 Mich 267 , 278 n 39; 715 NW2d 290 (2006). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Drouillard v. Stroh Brewery Co.
green
2 sentences2015This proposed reading of the statute violates the long- standing principle that “in the interpretation of statutes, effect must be given, if possible, to every word, sentence and section and, to that end, the entire act must be read to be an harmonious and consistent enactment as a whole.” Drouillard v Stroh Brewery Co, 449 Mich 293, 303 ; 536 NW2d 530 (1995). 2015This proposed reading of the statute violates the long- standing principle that “in the interpretation of statutes, effect must be given, if possible, to every word, sentence and section and, to that end, the entire act must be read to be an harmonious and consistent enactment as a whole.” Drouillard v Stroh Brewery Co, 449 Mich 293, 303 ; 536 NW2d 530 (1995). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Petersen v. Magna Corp.
green
2 sentences2010The importance of the stare decisis doctrine is well-established, for, as Alexander Hamilton stated, to “‘avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that [courts] should be bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them . . . .’” Petersen v Magna Corp, 484 Mich 300, 314-315 ; 773 NW2d 564 (2009) (opinion by KELLY, C.J.), quoting The Federalist No. 78, p 471 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed, 1961). 2010The importance of the stare decisis doctrine is well-established, for, as Alexander Hamilton stated, to “‘avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that [courts] should be bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them . . . .’” Petersen v Magna Corp, 484 Mich 300, 314-315 ; 773 NW2d 564 (2009) (opinion by KELLY, C.J.), quoting The Federalist No. 78, p 471 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed, 1961). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Brown v. Manistee County Road Commission
red
2 sentences2010Under the long- standing doctrine of stare decisis, “principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction should not be lightly departed.” Brown v Manistee Co Rd Comm, 452 Mich 354, 365 ; 550 NW2d 215 (1996) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 2010Under the long- standing doctrine of stare decisis, “principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction should not be lightly departed.” Brown v Manistee Co Rd Comm, 452 Mich 354, 365 ; 550 NW2d 215 (1996) (quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Stratton
green
2 sentences1981See People v Hatt, 384 Mich 302 ; 181 NW2d 912 (1970), People v Stratton, 13 Mich App 350 ; 164 NW2d 555 (1968). 1981See People v Hatt, 384 Mich 302 ; 181 NW2d 912 (1970), People v Stratton, 13 Mich App 350 ; 164 NW2d 555 (1968). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Case v. Liquor Control Commission
green
2 sentences1980Case v Liquor Control Comm, 314 Mich 632, 642 ; 23 NW2d 109 (1946). 1980Case v Liquor Control Comm, 314 Mich 632, 642 ; 23 NW2d 109 (1946). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Miller
green
2 sentences1976People v Miller, 96 Mich 119, 121 ; 55 NW 675 (1893), People v Coffman, 45 Mich App 480, 488 ; 206 NW2d 795 (1973), lv den 390 Mich 758 (1973). 1976People v Miller, 96 Mich 119, 121 ; 55 NW 675 (1893), People v Coffman, 45 Mich App 480, 488 ; 206 NW2d 795 (1973), lv den 390 Mich 758 (1973). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Coffman
green
2 sentences1976People v Miller, 96 Mich 119, 121 ; 55 NW 675 (1893), People v Coffman, 45 Mich App 480, 488 ; 206 NW2d 795 (1973), lv den 390 Mich 758 (1973). 1976People v Miller, 96 Mich 119, 121 ; 55 NW 675 (1893), People v Coffman, 45 Mich App 480, 488 ; 206 NW2d 795 (1973), lv den 390 Mich 758 (1973). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Reinink v. Van Loozenoord
green
1 sentence1968The rule defendants believe to be applicable is stated in their brief as follows: “It has been the long standing rule that specific performance will not be granted in favor of one party unless it can be also granted in favor of the other party.” The case of Reinink v. Van Loozenoord (1963), 370 Mich 121 , cited by both parties, is dispositive of the issue of mutuality. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.