7 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2022 2 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. Steanhousegreen2 sentences2017In Steanhouse, this Court referred to Milbourn and People v Houston, 448 Mich 312, 321, 323 ; 532 NW2d 508 (1995), articulating a non-exclusive list of factors that Michigan courts had previously weighed in meeting the proportionality standard, such as: (1) the seriousness of the offense, (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines, and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitatio 2017In Steanhouse, this Court referred to Milbourn and People v Houston, 448 Mich 312, 321, 323 ; 532 NW2d 508 (1995), articulating a non-exclusive list of factors that Michigan courts had previously weighed in meeting the proportionality standard, such as: (1) the seriousness of the offense, (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines, and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitatio | 5 | 5 |
People v. Houstongreen2 sentences2017In Steanhouse, this Court referred to Milbourn and People v Houston, 448 Mich 312, 321, 323 ; 532 NW2d 508 (1995), articulating a non-exclusive list of factors that Michigan courts had previously weighed in meeting the proportionality standard, such as: (1) the seriousness of the offense, (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines, and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitatio 2017In Steanhouse, this Court referred to Milbourn and People v Houston, 448 Mich 312, 321, 323 ; 532 NW2d 508 (1995), articulating a non-exclusive list of factors that Michigan courts had previously weighed in meeting the proportionality standard, such as: (1) the seriousness of the offense, (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines, and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitatio | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wood v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange
green
2 sentences2022The factors a trial court must consider, which somewhat overlap, are derived from Wood, 413 Mich at 588 , and MRPC 1.5(a). 2022The factors a trial court must consider, which somewhat overlap, are derived from Wood, 413 Mich at 588 , and MRPC 1.5(a). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
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.