listed the following factors in Michigan

2018In Krueger, 176 Mich App at 248 , this Court noted, with regard to an award of attorney fees: “In making its determination, the court should consider, among other factors, the amount of time spent, the amount of money involved, the character of the services rendered, the skill and experience necessary, and the results obtained.” In Comerica Bank, 179 Mich App at 724 , this Court listed the following factors to use in determining the reasonableness of a fiduciary’s fee: (1) the size of the trust, (2) the responsibility involved, (3) the character of the work involved, (4) the results achieved,

2018In Krueger, 176 Mich App at 248 , this Court noted, with regard to an award of attorney fees: “In making its determination, the court should consider, among other factors, the amount of time spent, the amount of money involved, the character of the services rendered, the skill and experience necessary, and the results obtained.” In Comerica Bank, 179 Mich App at 724 , this Court listed the following factors to use in determining the reasonableness of a fiduciary’s fee: (1) the size of the trust, (2) the responsibility involved, (3) the character of the work involved, (4) the results achieved,

2018In Krueger, 176 Mich App at 248 , this Court noted, with regard to an award of attorney fees: “In making its determination, the court should consider, among other factors, the amount of time spent, the amount of money involved, the character of the services rendered, the skill and experience necessary, and the results obtained.” In Comerica Bank, 179 Mich App at 724 , this Court listed the following factors to use in determining the reasonableness of a fiduciary’s fee: (1) the size of the trust, (2) the responsibility involved, (3) the character of the work involved, (4) the results achieved,

2018In Krueger, 176 Mich App at 248 , this Court noted, with regard to an award of attorney fees: “In making its determination, the court should consider, among other factors, the amount of time spent, the amount of money involved, the character of the services rendered, the skill and experience necessary, and the results obtained.” In Comerica Bank, 179 Mich App at 724 , this Court listed the following factors to use in determining the reasonableness of a fiduciary’s fee: (1) the size of the trust, (2) the responsibility involved, (3) the character of the work involved, (4) the results achieved,

2025In Kernen, 232 Mich App at 514 , this Court listed the following factors for a trial court to consider when issuing an injunction: (a) the nature of the interest to be protected, (b) the relative adequacy to the plaintiff of injunction and of other remedies, (c) any unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in bringing suit, (d) any related misconduct on the part of the plaintiff, (e) the relative hardship likely to result to defendant if an injunction is granted and to plaintiff if it is denied, (f) the interests of third persons and of the public, and -13- (g) the practicability of framing and enf

2021In People v Barritt, 325 Mich App 556, 562-563 ; 926 NW2d 811 (2018), this Court listed the following factors that a court should consider in determining whether a defendant was in custody: “(1) the location of the questioning, (2) the duration of the questioning, (3) statements made during the interview, (4) the presence or absence of physical restraints during the questioning, and (5) the release of the interviewee at the end of the questioning.” (Citations omitted.) “[N]o one circumstance is controlling; rather, a reviewing Court must consider the totality of the circumstances when deciding

2021In People v Barritt, 325 Mich App 556, 562-563 ; 926 NW2d 811 (2018), this Court listed the following factors that a court should consider in determining whether a defendant was in custody: “(1) the location of the questioning, (2) the duration of the questioning, (3) statements made during the interview, (4) the presence or absence of physical restraints during the questioning, and (5) the release of the interviewee at the end of the questioning.” (Citations omitted.) “[N]o one circumstance is controlling; rather, a reviewing Court must consider the totality of the circumstances when deciding

2021“The ultimate question whether a person was ‘in custody’ for purposes of Miranda warnings is a mixed question of fact and law, which must be answered independently by the reviewing court after review de novo of the record.” People v Mendez, 225 Mich App 381, 382 , 571 NW2d 528 (1997), citing Thompson v. Keohane, 516 US 99 , 116 S Ct 457 , 133 L Ed 2d 383 (1995).

2021“The ultimate question whether a person was ‘in custody’ for purposes of Miranda warnings is a mixed question of fact and law, which must be answered independently by the reviewing court after review de novo of the record.” People v Mendez, 225 Mich App 381, 382 , 571 NW2d 528 (1997), citing Thompson v. Keohane, 516 US 99 , 116 S Ct 457 , 133 L Ed 2d 383 (1995).

2021“The ultimate question whether a person was ‘in custody’ for purposes of Miranda warnings is a mixed question of fact and law, which must be answered independently by the reviewing court after review de novo of the record.” People v Mendez, 225 Mich App 381, 382 , 571 NW2d 528 (1997), citing Thompson v. Keohane, 516 US 99 , 116 S Ct 457 , 133 L Ed 2d 383 (1995).

2021“The ultimate question whether a person was ‘in custody’ for purposes of Miranda warnings is a mixed question of fact and law, which must be answered independently by the reviewing court after review de novo of the record.” People v Mendez, 225 Mich App 381, 382 , 571 NW2d 528 (1997), citing Thompson v. Keohane, 516 US 99 , 116 S Ct 457 , 133 L Ed 2d 383 (1995).

2016In Wood, 413 Mich at 588 , the court listed the following factors used to assess reasonable attorney fees: “(1) the professional standing and experience of the attorney; (2) the skill, time and labor involved; (3) the amount in question and the results achieved; (4) the difficulty of the case; (5) the expenses incurred; and (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.” (Internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2016A “trial court is not limited to [the -9- Wood] factors” and “the trial court need not detail its findings on each specific factor considered.” Smith, 481 Mich at 529 n 14.

2015Id. at 325-326 .

2015In Meeboer, 439 Mich at 323 , the Court stated that “further analysis of the circumstances surrounding the examination of a child is necessary to determine whether the child understood the need to be truthful to the physician.” The court listed the following factors for consideration in making a determination regarding the reliability of the statement of a child: (1) the age and maturity of the declarant, (2) the manner in which the statements are elicited (leading questions may undermine the trustworthiness of a statement), (3) the manner in which the statements are phrased (childlike termino