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 1 courts 1999–2026 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. Morrowgreen1 sentence2026Based upon the precedent already discussed, the trial court’s dismissal violated the constitutional separation of powers doctrine and was an abuse of discretion because: (1) no permissive statute is cited; (2) there was no determination by the trial court that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction; and (3) there was no determination by the court that any “activities or decisions by the prosecutor that [were] unconstitutional, illegal, or ultra vires.” Stewart, 52 Mich App at 482-483; Morrow, 214 Mich App at 161-162. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stewartgreen1 sentence2026Based upon the precedent already discussed, the trial court’s dismissal violated the constitutional separation of powers doctrine and was an abuse of discretion because: (1) no permissive statute is cited; (2) there was no determination by the trial court that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction; and (3) there was no determination by the court that any “activities or decisions by the prosecutor that [were] unconstitutional, illegal, or ultra vires.” Stewart, 52 Mich App at 482-483; Morrow, 214 Mich App at 161-162. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hackel v. Macomb County Commission
green
1 sentence2022Hackel, 298 Mich App at 327 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Taylor v. Auditor General
green
1 sentence2014Id. [Littsey v Bd of Governors of Wayne State Univ, 108 Mich App 406, 412 ; 310 NW2d 399 (1981).] Given that the Court of Claims was created by legislation, the amendment of that legislation does not run afoul of the constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Littsey v. Board of Governors of Wayne State University
green
2 sentences2014Id. [Littsey v Bd of Governors of Wayne State Univ, 108 Mich App 406, 412 ; 310 NW2d 399 (1981).] Given that the Court of Claims was created by legislation, the amendment of that legislation does not run afoul of the constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine. 2014Id. [Littsey v Bd of Governors of Wayne State Univ, 108 Mich App 406, 412 ; 310 NW2d 399 (1981).] Given that the Court of Claims was created by legislation, the amendment of that legislation does not run afoul of the constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Danse Corp. v. City of Madison Heights
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Wayne County Prosecutor v. Parole Board
green
1 sentence2000Because the circuit court improperly substituted its judgment for that of respondent, Wayne County Prosecutor, supra, we reverse the circuit court order reversing respondent’s denial of petitioner’s parole. *635 n Respondent and the prosecutor also assert that, even assuming respondent abused its discretion in denying petitioner parole, the circuit court lacked authority to order respondent to release petitioner on parole because such an order violates the constitutional separation of powers doctrine. 2 Whether a violation of the separation of powers doctrine has occurred is a question of law | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Sierb
green
2 sentences2000People v Sierb, 456 Mich 519, 522 ; 581 NW2d 219 (1998). 2000People v Sierb, 456 Mich 519, 522 ; 581 NW2d 219 (1998). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hopkins v. Parole Board
green
1 sentence1999Hopkins v Parole Bd, 237 Mich App 629 ; _ NW2d _ (1999). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.