characterized rule (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

characterized rule in Michigan

6 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2014 0 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Roper v. Simmons green
scotus · 2005
2 sentences

2014The Court characterized the rule it was adopting as a “categorical rule.” Id. at 572 .5 The subsequent decision in Graham adopted what the Court again characterized as a “categorical rule,” i.e., that a sentence of life without parole could not be imposed on a juvenile nonhomicide offender.

2014The Court characterized the rule it was adopting as a “categorical rule.” Id. at 572 .5 The subsequent decision in Graham adopted what the Court again characterized as a “categorical rule,” i.e., that a sentence of life without parole could not be imposed on a juvenile nonhomicide offender.

32014–2014
Graham v. Florida green
scotus · 2010
2 sentences

2014Graham, 560 US at 79 .

2014Graham, 560 US at 79 .

32014–2014
People v. Mitchell green
mich · 1997
1 sentence

2002Saying that the record belied the claim that the decision not to call her was strategic, the Court characterized defense counsels’ preparation as “inadequate,” and concluded, “our confidence in the reliability of the result has been undermined, Mitchell, supra, and a new trial based on ineffective assistance is warranted.” The contrary conclusion of the circuit court was explained in the opinion it issued after the remand proceedings.

12002–2002
Hill v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance green
gactapp · 1994
2 sentences

1995These decisions — Epps v Nicholson, 187 Ga App 246; 370 SE2d 13 (1988), Georgia Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co v Kephart, 211 Ga App 423; 439 SE2d 682 (1993), *189 and Hill v Nationwide Mut Fire Ins Co, 214 Ga App 715; 448 SE2d 747 (1994) — consider "where you reside," [35] the language in this case.

1995These deci sions — Epps v Nicholson, 187 Ga App 246; 370 SE2d 13 (1988), Georgia Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co v Kephart, 211 Ga App 423; 439 SE2d 682 (1993), and Hill v Nationwide Mut Fire Ins Co, 214 Ga App 715; 448 SE2d 747 (1994) — consider "where you reside,” 35 the language in this case.

11995–1995
Epps v. Nicholson green
gactapp · 1988
2 sentences

1995These decisions — Epps v Nicholson, 187 Ga App 246; 370 SE2d 13 (1988), Georgia Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co v Kephart, 211 Ga App 423; 439 SE2d 682 (1993), *189 and Hill v Nationwide Mut Fire Ins Co, 214 Ga App 715; 448 SE2d 747 (1994) — consider "where you reside," [35] the language in this case.

1995These deci sions — Epps v Nicholson, 187 Ga App 246; 370 SE2d 13 (1988), Georgia Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co v Kephart, 211 Ga App 423; 439 SE2d 682 (1993), and Hill v Nationwide Mut Fire Ins Co, 214 Ga App 715; 448 SE2d 747 (1994) — consider "where you reside,” 35 the language in this case.

11995–1995
Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Kephart green
gactapp · 1993
2 sentences

1995These decisions — Epps v Nicholson, 187 Ga App 246; 370 SE2d 13 (1988), Georgia Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co v Kephart, 211 Ga App 423; 439 SE2d 682 (1993), *189 and Hill v Nationwide Mut Fire Ins Co, 214 Ga App 715; 448 SE2d 747 (1994) — consider "where you reside," [35] the language in this case.

1995These deci sions — Epps v Nicholson, 187 Ga App 246; 370 SE2d 13 (1988), Georgia Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co v Kephart, 211 Ga App 423; 439 SE2d 682 (1993), and Hill v Nationwide Mut Fire Ins Co, 214 Ga App 715; 448 SE2d 747 (1994) — consider "where you reside,” 35 the language in this case.

11995–1995
Bowen v. Eli Lilly & Co. green
mass · 1990
2 sentences

1993The majority's approach provides the plaintiff with the opportunity to bring suit while simultaneously recognizing the Legislature's desire, as announced in the statute of limitations. [29] In Bowen v Eli Lilly & Co, Inc, 408 Mass 204, 207; 557 NE2d 739 (1990), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed the "level of notice of causation a plaintiff must have to trigger the running of the statute of limitations." The court characterized the standard as a "likely standard," yet required a lesser quantum of information than "likely" to commence the running of the statute of limitations.

1993In Bowen v Eli Lilly & Co, Inc, 408 Mass 204, 207; 557 NE2d 739 (1990), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed the "level of notice of causation a plaintiff must have to trigger the running of the statute of limitations.” The court characterized the standard as a "likely standard,” yet required a lesser quantum of information than "likely” to commence the running of the statute of limitations.

11993–1993

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 712A.2 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 712A.4 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1f (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.39 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.1 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25a (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 791.234 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

IL 8 (1977–2021) CA 8 (1956–2025) WA 7 (1991–2024) VT 6 (1917–2014) MI 6 (1993–2014) FL 6 (1993–2023) PA 6 (1960–2018) TX 5 (1990–2022) NJ 5 (1986–2025) MD 4 (1964–2008) IA 4 (1990–2020) WI 3 (1981–2005) CO 3 (2006–2025) OH 3 (2024–2025) VA 2 (2006–2006) OR 2 (2001–2020) MO 2 (1983–1993) OK 2 (1999–2011) LA 2 (1995–1999) MA 2 (2004–2015) TN 2 (2006–2018)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check