second assignment error (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

second assignment error in Michigan

6 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1892–1975 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
People v. Brocato green
michctapp · 1969
2 sentences

1975The second assignment of error by defendant asserts that the prosecutor impermissibly made reference to a prior attorney-client relationship between a prosecution witness and defense counsel as proscribed by, inter alia, People v Brocato, 17 Mich App 277 ; 169 NW2d 483 (1969).

1975The second assignment of error by defendant asserts that the prosecutor impermissibly made reference to a prior attorney-client relationship between a prosecution witness and defense counsel as proscribed by, inter alia, People v Brocato, 17 Mich App 277 ; 169 NW2d 483 (1969).

11975–1975
People v. Camak green
michctapp · 1967
1 sentence

1971MCLA § 771.14 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1144); People v. Charles Williams, supra; People v. Camak, supra. As to the second assignment of error, defendant contends that his plea was induced by his attorney’s promise that the court would be lenient.

11971–1971
People v. Williams green
michctapp · 1969
1 sentence

1971MCLA § 771.14 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1144); People v. Charles Williams, supra; People v. Camak, supra. As to the second assignment of error, defendant contends that his plea was induced by his attorney’s promise that the court would be lenient.

11971–1971
People v. Pallister green
michctapp · 1968
1 sentence

1969We have made an independent examination of the record (see People v. Pallister [1968], 14 Mich App 139 ) and find no error in the trial court’s conclusions that the Miranda warnings were in fact given by the police and that the defendant’s statements to the police were voluntary. 2 The defendant’s second assignment of error concerns certain testimony introduced at the time of trial.

11969–1969
People v. Longaria neutral
mich · 1952
1 sentence

1968The second assignment of error concerns the refusal of the trial judge to allow the testimony of an alibi witness when defendant failed to give the notice required by statute. 2 “Under our code of criminal procedure, when an accused wishes to set up an alibi as a defense he must give the prosecution notice of such defense at least 4 days prior to trial. * * * If an accused fails to give the notice required by the statute the trial court may refuse to receive evidence of alibi.” People v. Longaria (1952), 333 Mich 696, 698 .

11968–1968
Granger v. French neutral
mich · 1908
2 sentences

1909The second assignment of error is that the court erred in holding that the assignment of the said Shields McCarthy to said claimant was void as against public policy upon the authority of Granger v. French, 152 Mich. 356 ( 116 N. W. 181 ).

1909The second assignment of error is that the court erred in holding that the assignment of the said Shields McCarthy to said claimant was void as against public policy upon the authority of Granger v. French, 152 Mich. 356 ( 116 N. W. 181 ).

11909–1909
People v. Baumann neutral
mich · 1884
1 sentence

1892This ruling was based upon the dictum in People v. Baumann, 52 Mich. 584.

11892–1892

Where else courts name it

OH 2000 (1927–2026) OR 127 (1927–2026) LA 94 (1971–2026) OK 88 (1894–2022) NE 71 (1884–2025) VA 60 (1883–2025) TX 58 (1873–2015) PA 40 (1888–1979) TN 38 (1900–1979) NC 33 (1890–2007) WV 30 (1896–2026) WA 24 (1915–2019) MO 21 (1890–2009) MS 19 (1868–1997) IN 17 (1872–1954) AZ 16 (1925–1969) GA 16 (1901–1973) AL 16 (1852–1974) FL 15 (1903–1958) KS 12 (1892–1957) CT 11 (1926–2007) CA 10 (1905–1979) ID 10 (1917–1980) CO 8 (1888–1975) MI 6 (1892–1975) PR 6 (1923–1962) IL 6 (1903–1980) MA 5 (1885–2011) IA 5 (1918–1959) NM 4 (1948–1964) KY 4 (1960–1989) AR 3 (1917–1917) SC 3 (1907–1938) RI 3 (1970–2011) NV 2 (1867–1976) NY 2 (1903–1981) MD 2 (1888–1973) MT 2 (1976–2019)

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