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 1995–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gay v. Select Specialty Hospitalgreen2 sentences2025CONCLUSION By “apply[ing] an overly narrow test of qualifications in order to preclude [Dr. Mathew] from testifying as an expert,” Gay, 295 Mich App at 291 (quotation marks and citation omitted), the trial court misapplied the law and thereby necessarily abused its discretion, id. at 292 . 2025CONCLUSION By “apply[ing] an overly narrow test of qualifications in order to preclude [Dr. Mathew] from testifying as an expert,” Gay, 295 Mich App at 291 (quotation marks and citation omitted), the trial court misapplied the law and thereby necessarily abused its discretion, id. at 292 . | 1 | 1 |
People of Michigan v. Dalton Duane Carllgreen2 sentences2018“An expert witness may offer an opinion only if he or she has specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence.” People v Carll, 322 Mich App 690, 699 ; 915 NW2d 387 (2018). “[A] proposed expert should not be scrutinized by an overly narrow test of qualifications.” People v Whitfield, 425 Mich 116, 123 ; 388 NW2d 206 (1986) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2018“An expert witness may offer an opinion only if he or she has specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence.” People v Carll, 322 Mich App 690, 699 ; 915 NW2d 387 (2018). “[A] proposed expert should not be scrutinized by an overly narrow test of qualifications.” People v Whitfield, 425 Mich 116, 123 ; 388 NW2d 206 (1986) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 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. Whitfield
green
2 sentences2018See MRE 702; People v Whitfield, 425 Mich 116, 123 ; 388 NW2d 206 (1986) (citation omitted) (providing that courts should not apply an overly narrow test of qualifications to exclude an expert witness). 2018See MRE 702; People v Whitfield, 425 Mich 116, 123 ; 388 NW2d 206 (1986) (citation omitted) (providing that courts should not apply an overly narrow test of qualifications to exclude an expert witness). | 5 | 1995–2019 |
People v. Moye
neutral
2 sentences1995People v Whitfield, 425 Mich 116, 122-124 ; 388 NW2d 206 (1986); People v Moye, 194 Mich App 373, 378 ; 487 NW2d 777 (1992), rev’d on other grounds 441 Mich 864 (1992). 1995People v Whitfield, 425 Mich 116, 122-124 ; 388 NW2d 206 (1986); People v Moye, 194 Mich App 373, 378 ; 487 NW2d 777 (1992), rev’d on other grounds 441 Mich 864 (1992). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.