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 2 courts 1972–2008 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Rufus Williamsgreen1 sentence1972People v Rufus Williams, 386 Mich 277, 284 (1971), interpreted Barrows as formulating a twofold test as to whether a factual basis existed for acceptance of the guilty plea. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Katz v. United States
green
2 sentences2008Generally, as here, the answer to that question requires reference to a "place." My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Thus a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy.... [ Id. at 361 , 88 S.Ct. 507 (Harlan, J., concurring).] By focusing on the illegality of the contraband obtained by the search, the majority disregards the si 2008Generally, as here, the answer to that question requires reference to a "place." My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Thus a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy.... [ Id. at 361 , 88 S.Ct. 507 (Harlan, J., concurring).] By focusing on the illegality of the contraband obtained by the search, the majority disregards the si | 3 | 1981–2008 |
State Employees Ass'n v. Department of Management & Budget
green
1 sentence1989State Employees, supra, pp 127-128 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Hlady v. Wolverine Bolt Company
green
2 sentences1981After following the twofold standard of Lovalo , and later West , for almost 30 years, this Court abruptly switched its focus in Hlady v Wolverine Bolt Co, 325 Mich 23 ; 37 NW2d 576 (1949). 1981After following the twofold standard of Lovalo , and later West , for almost 30 years, this Court abruptly switched its focus in Hlady v Wolverine Bolt Co, 325 Mich 23 ; 37 NW2d 576 (1949). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.