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 1970–2026 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. Jacksongreen2 sentences2026See id. at 278-279 (an error related to the lack of proper pretrial notice under MRE 404(b)(2) did not require reversal when the evidence was substantively admissible and the defendant failed to demonstrate how he would have approached the trial or presented his defense differently if he had received proper pretrial notice). 2020See People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 278-279 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015) (finding no prejudice established from the lack of notice, when the defendant did not show how he would have approached the trial or presented his defense differently had the required notice been given, and when he did not identify or present offers of proof from any witnesses that he might have called with notice). | 5 | 5 |
People v. Milesgreen2 sentences2021See People v Foster, 377 Mich 233, 235 (1966) (reversing and remanding without comment on the merits in response to confession); People v Miles, 376 Mich 165, 166 (1965) (“I would purposely refrain from determining the merit of defendant’s presented claim of error, there being no need for such determination considering the prosecutor’s confession.”). 4 In the present case, I respectfully submit that the majority has abdicated this responsibility by simply vacating the lower court judgments and remanding without any analysis of the legal issue at stake. 1970In light of bench questioning of both counsel, we now adopt the procedure followed by our State Supreme Court in People v. Miles (1965), 376 Mich 165, 166 , where Justice Black speaking for a unanimous court said: “I would purposely refrain from determining the merit of defendant’s presented claim of error, there being no need for such determination considering the prosecutor’s confession. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Fostergreen2 sentences2021See People v Foster, 377 Mich 233, 235 (1966) (reversing and remanding without comment on the merits in response to confession); People v Miles, 376 Mich 165, 166 (1965) (“I would purposely refrain from determining the merit of defendant’s presented claim of error, there being no need for such determination considering the prosecutor’s confession.”). 4 In the present case, I respectfully submit that the majority has abdicated this responsibility by simply vacating the lower court judgments and remanding without any analysis of the legal issue at stake. 1970The confession instead should be accepted as fair basis for the latter’s motion and grant thereof.” See, also, People v. Foster (1966), 377 Mich 233 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.