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.
6 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2022 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 ex rel. Harty v. Faygreen2 sentences1982See People ex rel Harty v Fay, 10 NY2d 374 ; 179 NE2d 483 (1961).” While we agree that the question of retention or loss or jurisdiction should not depend solely on the consent or waiver of defendant, we find the Turner panel’s characterization of waiver as "meaningless” impossible to reconcile with the Supreme *95 Court’s holding in In re Tinholt, 223 Mich 483, 484 ; 194 NW 131 (1923): "By consenting, plaintiff has waived the right to complain of the indefinite postponement. 1982See People ex rel Harty v Fay, 10 NY2d 374 ; 179 NE2d 483 (1961).” While we agree that the question of retention or loss or jurisdiction should not depend solely on the consent or waiver of defendant, we find the Turner panel’s characterization of waiver as "meaningless” impossible to reconcile with the Supreme *95 Court’s holding in In re Tinholt, 223 Mich 483, 484 ; 194 NW 131 (1923): "By consenting, plaintiff has waived the right to complain of the indefinite postponement. | 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. Brown
green
1 sentence2022Viewed in context, see Brown, 294 Mich App at 382-383 , the prosecutor’s characterization of defense counsel’s objection as “baseless” cannot reasonably be viewed as a personal attack on defense counsel. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Ellis
green
2 sentences2018In his appeal of right, defendant’s brief raised the issue and cited MCL 769.13 and People v Ellis, 224 Mich App 752, 757 ; 569 NW2d 917 (1997), a case that held that the prosecution may not amend a supplemental information after the 21-day deadline to add prior convictions. 2018In his appeal of right, defendant’s brief raised the issue and cited MCL 769.13 and People v Ellis, 224 Mich App 752, 757 ; 569 NW2d 917 (1997), a case that held that the prosecution may not amend a supplemental information after the 21-day deadline to add prior convictions. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Fox v. Board of Regents of University of Mich.
green
2 sentences2017We need not decide here whether we agree with this particular characterization of the doctrine—just that we agree the doctrine does not sound in subject matter jurisdiction. 7 Although the defendant argued lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the courts below and in its initial response to the instant application, it ultimately conceded in briefing to this Court that “the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention does not involve a question of a court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a claim.” Despite the defendant’s concession, we have a duty to examine “the limits of [our] authority,” Fox v 2017We need not decide here whether we agree with this particular characterization of the doctrine—just that we agree the doctrine does not sound in subject matter jurisdiction. 7 Although the defendant argued lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the courts below and in its initial response to the instant application, it ultimately conceded in briefing to this Court that “the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention does not involve a question of a court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a claim.” Despite the defendant’s concession, we have a duty to examine “the limits of [our] authority,” Fox v | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Return of Forfeited Goods
green
2 sentences2017We need not decide here whether we agree with this particular characterization of the doctrine—just that we agree the doctrine does not sound in subject matter jurisdiction. 7 Although the defendant argued lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the courts below and in its initial response to the instant application, it ultimately conceded in briefing to this Court that “the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention does not involve a question of a court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a claim.” Despite the defendant’s concession, we have a duty to examine “the limits of [our] authority,” Fox v 2017We need not decide here whether we agree with this particular characterization of the doctrine—just that we agree the doctrine does not sound in subject matter jurisdiction. 7 Although the defendant argued lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the courts below and in its initial response to the instant application, it ultimately conceded in briefing to this Court that “the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention does not involve a question of a court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a claim.” Despite the defendant’s concession, we have a duty to examine “the limits of [our] authority,” Fox v | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Borgman v. Bultema
green
1 sentence2017The defendant stresses that “the action of the church authorities in the deposition of pastors and the expulsion of members is final,” Borgman, 213 Mich at 703 , and that civil courts “cannot decide who ought to be members of the church, nor whether the excommunicated have been justly or unjustly, regularly or irregularly cut off from the body of the church,” Watson, 80 US at 730 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Cain
green
1 sentence2015The law is clear that, “if a defendant had a good-faith belief that the defendant had a legal right to take the property at issue, then the defendant cannot be convicted because the defendant did not intend to deprive another person of property.” Cain, 238 Mich App at 119 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp.
green
2 sentences1982International Union, UAW v Hoosier Cardinal Corp, 383 US 696, 704-706 ; 86 S Ct 1107 ; 16 L Ed 2d 192 (1966). 1982International Union, UAW v Hoosier Cardinal Corp, 383 US 696, 704-706 ; 86 S Ct 1107 ; 16 L Ed 2d 192 (1966). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Allen v. Merrill
green
1 sentence1982See People ex rel Harty v Fay, 10 NY2d 374 ; 179 NE2d 483 (1961).” While we agree that the question of retention or loss or jurisdiction should not depend solely on the consent or waiver of defendant, we find the Turner panel’s characterization of waiver as "meaningless” impossible to reconcile with the Supreme *95 Court’s holding in In re Tinholt, 223 Mich 483, 484 ; 194 NW 131 (1923): "By consenting, plaintiff has waived the right to complain of the indefinite postponement. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
In re Tinholt
green
1 sentence1982See People ex rel Harty v Fay, 10 NY2d 374 ; 179 NE2d 483 (1961).” While we agree that the question of retention or loss or jurisdiction should not depend solely on the consent or waiver of defendant, we find the Turner panel’s characterization of waiver as "meaningless” impossible to reconcile with the Supreme *95 Court’s holding in In re Tinholt, 223 Mich 483, 484 ; 194 NW 131 (1923): "By consenting, plaintiff has waived the right to complain of the indefinite postponement. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.