good cause requirement in Michigan

2016Alken-Ziegler, Inc v Waterbury Headers Corp, 461 Mich 219, 229 ; 600 NW2d 638 (1999). “ ‘The good cause requirement . . . may be satisfied by demonstrating a procedural irregularity or defect or a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the requirements that led to the default judgment.’ ” Bullington v Corbell, 293 Mich App 549 , 560- 561; 809 NW2d 657 (2011) (citations omitted). “[M]anifest injustice is the result that would occur if a default were to be allowed to stand where a party has satisfied the ‘meritorious defense’ and ‘good cause’ requirements of the court rule.” Alken-Ziegler,

2016Alken-Ziegler, Inc v Waterbury Headers Corp, 461 Mich 219, 229 ; 600 NW2d 638 (1999). “ ‘The good cause requirement . . . may be satisfied by demonstrating a procedural irregularity or defect or a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the requirements that led to the default judgment.’ ” Bullington v Corbell, 293 Mich App 549 , 560- 561; 809 NW2d 657 (2011) (citations omitted). “[M]anifest injustice is the result that would occur if a default were to be allowed to stand where a party has satisfied the ‘meritorious defense’ and ‘good cause’ requirements of the court rule.” Alken-Ziegler,

2017Dennis pleaded guilty of unlawful imprisonment, carjacking, and felony-firearm, and Tyrese pleaded guilty of carjacking and felony-firearm. 2 See People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -2- In his brief on appeal, defendant does not cite MCR 2.503(B) or the good cause factors.

2017Dennis pleaded guilty of unlawful imprisonment, carjacking, and felony-firearm, and Tyrese pleaded guilty of carjacking and felony-firearm. 2 See People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -2- In his brief on appeal, defendant does not cite MCR 2.503(B) or the good cause factors.

2025“The good cause requirement . . . may be satisfied by demonstrating a procedural irregularity or defect or a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the requirements that led to the default judgment.” Bullington v Corbell, 293 Mich App 549, 560-561 ; 809 NW2d 657 (2011).

2025“The good cause requirement . . . may be satisfied by demonstrating a procedural irregularity or defect or a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the requirements that led to the default judgment.” Bullington v Corbell, 293 Mich App 549, 560-561 ; 809 NW2d 657 (2011).

2017“Having thus fully addressed all known witnesses and provided for notice of their existence and a designation of who will be produced, the statute contemplates that the defense will seek production of the witnesses it desires and allows the prosecutor to delete from or add to the list of witnesses it will produce ‘at any time’ as long as the good-cause requirement of MCL 767.40a(1) is satisfied.” Id.

2017“Having thus fully addressed all known witnesses and provided for notice of their existence and a designation of who will be produced, the statute contemplates that the defense will seek production of the witnesses it desires and allows the prosecutor to delete from or add to the list of witnesses it will produce ‘at any time’ as long as the good-cause requirement of MCL 767.40a(1) is satisfied.” Id.

2026In order for a new trial to be granted on the basis of newly discovered evidence, a defendant must show that: (1) the evidence itself, not merely its materiality, was newly discovered; (2) the newly discovered evidence was not cumulative; (3) the party could not, using reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced the evidence at trial; and (4) the new evidence makes a different result probable on retrial. [Id. at 566, citing People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 692 ; 664 NW2d 174 (2003) (quotation marks omitted).] “As our Supreme Court has explained, Cress’s first three prongs relate to the goo

2026In order for a new trial to be granted on the basis of newly discovered evidence, a defendant must show that: (1) the evidence itself, not merely its materiality, was newly discovered; (2) the newly discovered evidence was not cumulative; (3) the party could not, using reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced the evidence at trial; and (4) the new evidence makes a different result probable on retrial. [Id. at 566, citing People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 692 ; 664 NW2d 174 (2003) (quotation marks omitted).] “As our Supreme Court has explained, Cress’s first three prongs relate to the goo

2019Viviano, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). *183 For the reasons set forth in my dissent in In re MGR , --- Mich. ----, 928 N.W.2d 184 (2019) (Docket No. 157821), I would apply the good-cause analysis set forth In re MKK , 286 Mich. App. 546 , 781 N.W.2d 132 (2009), to determine whether the putative father's paternity action should have been stayed in favor of the adoption proceedings.

2019Viviano, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). *183 For the reasons set forth in my dissent in In re MGR , --- Mich. ----, 928 N.W.2d 184 (2019) (Docket No. 157821), I would apply the good-cause analysis set forth In re MKK , 286 Mich. App. 546 , 781 N.W.2d 132 (2009), to determine whether the putative father's paternity action should have been stayed in favor of the adoption proceedings.

2018Additionally, an evidentiary error does not merit reversal in a criminal case unless, after review of the case, it appears that it is “more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” Lukity, 460 Mich at 495-496 .

2018Additionally, an evidentiary error does not merit reversal in a criminal case unless, after review of the case, it appears that it is “more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” Lukity, 460 Mich at 495-496 .

2018Defendant’s insurance company’s negligence in failing to properly represent him, and keep him apprised of the disposition of the lawsuit, “constitute[s] a reasonable excuse, under the good cause test, to set aside the default.” Shawl, 280 Mich App at 232-233 .

2018Defendant’s insurance company’s negligence in failing to properly represent him, and keep him apprised of the disposition of the lawsuit, “constitute[s] a reasonable excuse, under the good cause test, to set aside the default.” Shawl, 280 Mich App at 232-233 .

2018Defendant’s objection to counsel’s factual inaccuracy does not constitute a “[g]enuine disagreement between counsel and the defendant over the use of a substantial defense or a fundamental trial tactic [that would] satisf[y] the good cause requirement . . . .” People v Tucker, 181 Mich App 246, 255 ; 448 NW2d 811 (1989), remanded on other grounds by People v Musick, 437 Mich 867 (1990).

2018Defendant’s objection to counsel’s factual inaccuracy does not constitute a “[g]enuine disagreement between counsel and the defendant over the use of a substantial defense or a fundamental trial tactic [that would] satisf[y] the good cause requirement . . . .” People v Tucker, 181 Mich App 246, 255 ; 448 NW2d 811 (1989), remanded on other grounds by People v Musick, 437 Mich 867 (1990).

1970A. Utley Company v. Saginaw Circuit Judge (1964), 372 Mich 367 , 126 NW2d 696 .” 2 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated 2d ed, 1969, Supp, p 31. 20 As the advisory committee on the new Federal rules observed, the courts had been unable to distinguish clearly the two verbally-distinct requirements of justification: the good cause requirement and the showings required to validate production of work product.

1970A. Utley Company v. Saginaw Circuit Judge (1964), 372 Mich 367 , 126 NW2d 696 .” 2 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated 2d ed, 1969, Supp, p 31. 20 As the advisory committee on the new Federal rules observed, the courts had been unable to distinguish clearly the two verbally-distinct requirements of justification: the good cause requirement and the showings required to validate production of work product.

2026Saffian, 477 Mich at 15 .

2024The good cause prong of MCR 6.508(D)(3) may be “established by proving ineffective assistance of appellate counsel . . . or by showing that some external factor prevented counsel from previously raising the issue.” Reed, 449 Mich at 387 (citation omitted). “[R]egardless of whether a defendant files a prior motion in propria persona or with representation, he or she is required to fulfill the good cause requirement in MCR 6.508(D)(3).” People v Clark, 274 Mich App 248, 254 ; 732 NW2d 605 (2007).

2024The good cause prong of MCR 6.508(D)(3) may be “established by proving ineffective assistance of appellate counsel . . . or by showing that some external factor prevented counsel from previously raising the issue.” Reed, 449 Mich at 387 (citation omitted). “[R]egardless of whether a defendant files a prior motion in propria persona or with representation, he or she is required to fulfill the good cause requirement in MCR 6.508(D)(3).” People v Clark, 274 Mich App 248, 254 ; 732 NW2d 605 (2007).

2024In Lanzo, 86 Mich App at 415-416 , this Court held that the Board could exercise discretion and consider an untimely appeal when “an employer shows ‘good cause’ for having failed to meet the 15-working-day deadline and that it has a meritorious defense.” This Court left “it to the wisdom of the Board to determine” the good-cause standard.

2024Id. at 416-417 .

2022Janczyk, 125 Mich App at 691 .

2020In relation to the good cause requirement for a motion to adjourn based on the unavailability of a witness, a trial court must consider “ ‘whether defendant (1) asserted a constitutional right, (2) had a legitimate reason for asserting the right, (3) had been negligent, and (4) had requested previous adjournments.’ ” People v Coy, 258 Mich App 1, 18 ; 669 NW2d 831 (2003), quoting People v Lawton, 196 Mich App 341, 348 ; 492 NW2d 810 (1992).

2020In relation to the good cause requirement for a motion to adjourn based on the unavailability of a witness, a trial court must consider “ ‘whether defendant (1) asserted a constitutional right, (2) had a legitimate reason for asserting the right, (3) had been negligent, and (4) had requested previous adjournments.’ ” People v Coy, 258 Mich App 1, 18 ; 669 NW2d 831 (2003), quoting People v Lawton, 196 Mich App 341, 348 ; 492 NW2d 810 (1992).

2020In relation to the good cause requirement for a motion to adjourn based on the unavailability of a witness, a trial court must consider “ ‘whether defendant (1) asserted a constitutional right, (2) had a legitimate reason for asserting the right, (3) had been negligent, and (4) had requested previous adjournments.’ ” People v Coy, 258 Mich App 1, 18 ; 669 NW2d 831 (2003), quoting People v Lawton, 196 Mich App 341, 348 ; 492 NW2d 810 (1992).

2020In relation to the good cause requirement for a motion to adjourn based on the unavailability of a witness, a trial court must consider “ ‘whether defendant (1) asserted a constitutional right, (2) had a legitimate reason for asserting the right, (3) had been negligent, and (4) had requested previous adjournments.’ ” People v Coy, 258 Mich App 1, 18 ; 669 NW2d 831 (2003), quoting People v Lawton, 196 Mich App 341, 348 ; 492 NW2d 810 (1992).

2019Viviano, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). *183 For the reasons set forth in my dissent in In re MGR , --- Mich. ----, 928 N.W.2d 184 (2019) (Docket No. 157821), I would apply the good-cause analysis set forth In re MKK , 286 Mich. App. 546 , 781 N.W.2d 132 (2009), to determine whether the putative father's paternity action should have been stayed in favor of the adoption proceedings.

2016Id. at 308 .

2015MCR 6.508(D)(3). -8- In his discussion of MCR 6.508(D)(3), Freeman simply asserts that the prosecutor’s failure to disclose the photos in violation of the decision in Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963), prevented him from raising the issue earlier, which satisfied the good cause requirement.

2015MCR 6.508(D)(3). -8- In his discussion of MCR 6.508(D)(3), Freeman simply asserts that the prosecutor’s failure to disclose the photos in violation of the decision in Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963), prevented him from raising the issue earlier, which satisfied the good cause requirement.

2014A court “ ‘cannot adjudicate [an in personam] controversy without first having obtained jurisdiction [over the] defendant by service of process . . . .’ ” Lawrence M Clarke, Inc v Richco Constr, Inc, 489 Mich 265, 274 ; 803 NW2d 151 (2011), quoting Eisner v Williams, 298 Mich 215, 220-221 ; 298 NW 507 (1941).

2014A court “ ‘cannot adjudicate [an in personam] controversy without first having obtained jurisdiction [over the] defendant by service of process . . . .’ ” Lawrence M Clarke, Inc v Richco Constr, Inc, 489 Mich 265, 274 ; 803 NW2d 151 (2011), quoting Eisner v Williams, 298 Mich 215, 220-221 ; 298 NW 507 (1941).

2014Id.

2014B Under MCR 2.603(D)(1), “[a] motion to set aside a default or a default judgment. .. shall be granted only if good cause is shown and an affidavit of facts showing a meritorious defense is filed.” “ ‘The good cause requirement .. . may be satisfied by demonstrating a procedural irregularity or defect or a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the requirements that led to the default judgment.’ ” Bullington v Corbell, 293 Mich App 549, 560-561 ; 809 NW2d 657 (2011), quoting ISB Sales Co v Dave’s Cakes, 258 Mich App 520, 533 ; 672 NW2d 181 (2003). *26 1 Defendants’ claim that they were n

2014B Under MCR 2.603(D)(1), “[a] motion to set aside a default or a default judgment. .. shall be granted only if good cause is shown and an affidavit of facts showing a meritorious defense is filed.” “ ‘The good cause requirement .. . may be satisfied by demonstrating a procedural irregularity or defect or a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the requirements that led to the default judgment.’ ” Bullington v Corbell, 293 Mich App 549, 560-561 ; 809 NW2d 657 (2011), quoting ISB Sales Co v Dave’s Cakes, 258 Mich App 520, 533 ; 672 NW2d 181 (2003). *26 1 Defendants’ claim that they were n

2014A court “ ‘cannot adjudicate [an in personam] controversy without first having obtained jurisdiction [over the] defendant by service of process . . . .’ ” Lawrence M Clarke, Inc v Richco Constr, Inc, 489 Mich 265, 274 ; 803 NW2d 151 (2011), quoting Eisner v Williams, 298 Mich 215, 220-221 ; 298 NW 507 (1941).

2014A court “ ‘cannot adjudicate [an in personam] controversy without first having obtained jurisdiction [over the] defendant by service of process . . . .’ ” Lawrence M Clarke, Inc v Richco Constr, Inc, 489 Mich 265, 274 ; 803 NW2d 151 (2011), quoting Eisner v Williams, 298 Mich 215, 220-221 ; 298 NW 507 (1941).

2000In finding that plaintiffs failed to show good cause for the issuance of a second summons, the circuit court relied on this Court’s interpretation of the good cause requirement in Bush v Beemer, 224 Mich App 457 ; 569 NW2d 636 (1997).

2000In finding that plaintiffs failed to show good cause for the issuance of a second summons, the circuit court relied on this Court’s interpretation of the good cause requirement in Bush v Beemer, 224 Mich App 457 ; 569 NW2d 636 (1997).

1996However, even if there is no reasonable excuse for the failure to comply with the requirements that created the default, “[t]he showing of a meritorious defense and factual issues for trial may, under certain circumstances, fulfill the good-cause requirement by way of constituting a reason evidencing that manifest injustice would result from permitting a default to stand.” Komejan v Suburban Softball, Inc, 179 Mich App 41, 51 ; 445 NW2d 186 (1989).

1996However, even if there is no reasonable excuse for the failure to comply with the requirements that created the default, “[t]he showing of a meritorious defense and factual issues for trial may, under certain circumstances, fulfill the good-cause requirement by way of constituting a reason evidencing that manifest injustice would result from permitting a default to stand.” Komejan v Suburban Softball, Inc, 179 Mich App 41, 51 ; 445 NW2d 186 (1989).