detailed analysis in Michigan

2022While we did not perform a detailed analysis of the statute’s text, we rejected the defendant’s contention that the jury finding should be dispositive because “to hold that the language of this section applies only to exceptional cases arising under the act would be to import something into the statute which is at variance with its evident meaning.” Id. at 43 . 18 Bocquet v Herring, 972 SW2d 19, 20 (Tex, 1998). 8 and necessary attorney’s fees as are equitable and just.” 19 It held that the statute “does not require an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party” because “it provides that th

2022While we did not perform a detailed analysis of the statute’s text, we rejected the defendant’s contention that the jury finding should be dispositive because “to hold that the language of this section applies only to exceptional cases arising under the act would be to import something into the statute which is at variance with its evident meaning.” Id. at 43 . 18 Bocquet v Herring, 972 SW2d 19, 20 (Tex, 1998). 8 and necessary attorney’s fees as are equitable and just.” 19 It held that the statute “does not require an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party” because “it provides that th

2018We note that the trial court provided a detailed analysis of the “reasonableness” factors set forth in MRPC 1.5(a) and in Wood v Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exch, 413 Mich 573 ; 321 NW2d 653 (1982).

2018We note that the trial court provided a detailed analysis of the “reasonableness” factors set forth in MRPC 1.5(a) and in Wood v Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exch, 413 Mich 573 ; 321 NW2d 653 (1982).

2001Though some of its elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, the core component of standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article HI. [Citations omitted.] In Plaut v Spendthrift Farm, Inc, 514 US 211, 219-225 ; 115 S Ct 1447 ; 131 L Ed 2d 328 (1995), Justice Scalia, in another majority opinion, provided a detailed analysis of the concern with preserving the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches, that traced its history back to the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

2001Though some of its elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, the core component of standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article HI. [Citations omitted.] In Plaut v Spendthrift Farm, Inc, 514 US 211, 219-225 ; 115 S Ct 1447 ; 131 L Ed 2d 328 (1995), Justice Scalia, in another majority opinion, provided a detailed analysis of the concern with preserving the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches, that traced its history back to the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

2024Id. at 416-417 .

2022Vodvarka also provides a detailed analysis of the threshold requirement that courts find proper cause or a change in circumstances warranting modification to a custody arrangement before moving to evaluate a child’s custodial environment and best interests, id. at 509-517 , though this requirement is not specifically at issue in this appeal. -3- changes to parenting time and school enrollment rendered him unable to take the children to and from school and reduced his parenting time “from approximately 182 overnights under the prior order to approximately 62 overnights, a reduction of 120 days

2021Were this Court not bound by the Michigan Supreme Court’s order in Reeves v Midmichigan Health, 489 Mich 908 ; 769 NW2d 468 (Mem) (2011), I would conclude that the Supreme Court’s detailed analysis of ostensible agency and its ruling in Grewe v Mt Clemens Hosp, 404 Mich 240 ; 273 NW2d 429 (1978), supports a reversal of the trial court’s ruling in the present case.

2021Were this Court not bound by the Michigan Supreme Court’s order in Reeves v Midmichigan Health, 489 Mich 908 ; 769 NW2d 468 (Mem) (2011), I would conclude that the Supreme Court’s detailed analysis of ostensible agency and its ruling in Grewe v Mt Clemens Hosp, 404 Mich 240 ; 273 NW2d 429 (1978), supports a reversal of the trial court’s ruling in the present case.

2021Id. at 493-494 .

2018He contends that this is a structural defect that warrants reversal of his convictions without a showing of prejudice under United States v Cronic, 466 US 648 ; 104 S Ct 2039 ; 80 L Ed 2d 657 (1984).

2018He contends that this is a structural defect that warrants reversal of his convictions without a showing of prejudice under United States v Cronic, 466 US 648 ; 104 S Ct 2039 ; 80 L Ed 2d 657 (1984).

2018Pierron II, 486 Mich at 92 .

2017In CADL, this Court rejected the direct application of the preemption provisions of MCL 123.1102 because a district library was not contained within the definition of a “local unit of 1 298 Mich App 220 ; 826 NW2d 736 (2012). -1- government” under MCL 123.1101(a).2 The opinion then goes on to provide a detailed analysis of the applicability of field preemption and the application of the factors under People v Llewellyn.3 I need not extensively review the issue of field preemption here as the CADL opinion does an admirable job of doing just that.

2017In CADL, this Court rejected the direct application of the preemption provisions of MCL 123.1102 because a district library was not contained within the definition of a “local unit of 1 298 Mich App 220 ; 826 NW2d 736 (2012). -1- government” under MCL 123.1101(a).2 The opinion then goes on to provide a detailed analysis of the applicability of field preemption and the application of the factors under People v Llewellyn.3 I need not extensively review the issue of field preemption here as the CADL opinion does an admirable job of doing just that.

2016Dunigan, 299 Mich App at 589-590 .

2015We engaged in a detailed analysis of the trial court’s factual findings, id., unpub op at 2-6, and ultimately stated: As noted in Allstaedt v Ochs, 302 Mich 232, 237 ; 4 NW2d 530 (1942), the statutory presumption arising from the joint accounts can be rebutted by competent evidence.

2015We engaged in a detailed analysis of the trial court’s factual findings, id., unpub op at 2-6, and ultimately stated: As noted in Allstaedt v Ochs, 302 Mich 232, 237 ; 4 NW2d 530 (1942), the statutory presumption arising from the joint accounts can be rebutted by competent evidence.

2015Great Lakes Concrete Pole Corp, 148 Mich App at 656 n 6.

2014Plaintiff’s primary arguments on appeal are that defendant failed to establish that the objected-to attorney fees and litigation costs 2 were reasonable and that the trial court abused its discretion by totally disregarding the reasonableness factors enunciated in Smith, 481 Mich at 529-530 .3 With respect to the Smith factors, as mentioned above, the prior panel stated that “under MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a), the court is not necessarily required to undertake the detailed analysis described in Smith[.]” Fisher, slip op at 12.

2014Brown, 260 Mich App at 598 .

2007The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering immediate sanctions against the plaintiff for noncompliance with a court order, and this Court should not dilute the trial court's contempt power by now conditionally reversing the sanctions imposed. [3] NOTES [1] For a more detailed analysis of this Court's duty to provide written reasons for its decision, see my statements in Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228, 1231 , 729 N.W.2d 451 (2006); People v. Parsons, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor Inc., 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); Neal v. Dep't of Corre

2007The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering immediate sanctions against the plaintiff for noncompliance with a court order, and this Court should not dilute the trial court's contempt power by now conditionally reversing the sanctions imposed. [3] NOTES [1] For a more detailed analysis of this Court's duty to provide written reasons for its decision, see my statements in Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228, 1231 , 729 N.W.2d 451 (2006); People v. Parsons, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor Inc., 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); Neal v. Dep't of Corre

2007The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering immediate sanctions against the plaintiff for noncompliance with a court order, and this Court should not dilute the trial court's contempt power by now conditionally reversing the sanctions imposed. [3] NOTES [1] For a more detailed analysis of this Court's duty to provide written reasons for its decision, see my statements in Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228, 1231 , 729 N.W.2d 451 (2006); People v. Parsons, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor Inc., 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); Neal v. Dep't of Corre

2007The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering immediate sanctions against the plaintiff for noncompliance with a court order, and this Court should not dilute the trial court's contempt power by now conditionally reversing the sanctions imposed. [3] NOTES [1] For a more detailed analysis of this Court's duty to provide written reasons for its decision, see my statements in Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228, 1231 , 729 N.W.2d 451 (2006); People v. Parsons, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor Inc., 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); Neal v. Dep't of Corre

2007The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering immediate sanctions against the plaintiff for noncompliance with a court order, and this Court should not dilute the trial court's contempt power by now conditionally reversing the sanctions imposed. [3] NOTES [1] For a more detailed analysis of this Court's duty to provide written reasons for its decision, see my statements in Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228, 1231 , 729 N.W.2d 451 (2006); People v. Parsons, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor Inc., 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); Neal v. Dep't of Corre

2007The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering immediate sanctions against the plaintiff for noncompliance with a court order, and this Court should not dilute the trial court's contempt power by now conditionally reversing the sanctions imposed. [3] NOTES [1] For a more detailed analysis of this Court's duty to provide written reasons for its decision, see my statements in Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228, 1231 , 729 N.W.2d 451 (2006); People v. Parsons, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor Inc., 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); Neal v. Dep't of Corre

2001Courts should also consider any other circumstance bearing on the reliability of the statement at issue. [ Id. ] In light of those factors and after reviewing "all the circumstances surrounding the portion of the statement inculpating defendant," the Court of Appeals was "convinced that [the statement] lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to provide the jury with a satisfactorybasis for evaluating the truth of the statement." However, the Court failed to set forth a detailed analysis.

1998II In its opinion affirming the decision of the trial court, the Court of Appeals offered a detailed analysis of the central issues presented in this case. 217 Mich.App. at 538-557 , 552 N.W.2d 472 .

1998II In its opinion affirming the decision of the trial court, the Court of Appeals offered a detailed analysis of the central issues presented in this case. 217 Mich.App. at 538-557 , 552 N.W.2d 472 .

1998We undertook a detailed analysis of retroactivity principles earlier this year in People v Sexton, 458 Mich 43 ; 580 NW2d 404 (1998).

1998We undertook a detailed analysis of retroactivity principles earlier this year in People v Sexton, 458 Mich 43 ; 580 NW2d 404 (1998).

1987A similar detailed analysis was done by the Washington Supreme Court in Harbeson v Parke Davis, Inc, 98 Wash 2d 460, 467-478; 656 P2d 483 (1983).

1982See, also, Snyder v King, 199 Mich 345, 357 ; 165 NW 840 ; 1 ALR 893 (1917); 57 Am Jur 2d, Negligence, §§ 6-9, pp 340-350; 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 328c, pp 154-156. 5 38 Mich App 719, 726-727 ; 197 NW2d 160 (1972). 6 See, also, Braman v Bosworth, 112 Mich App 518, 520-523 ; 316 NW2d 255 (1982), for a detailed analysis of the proposition set forth in Garnet v Jenks, supra. In Braman , the plaintiff testified in her deposition that defendant Dolen was not negligent; however, another witness, defendant Bosworth, testified in his deposition that Dolen was, in fact, operating his automobile in a

1982See, also, Snyder v King, 199 Mich 345, 357 ; 165 NW 840 ; 1 ALR 893 (1917); 57 Am Jur 2d, Negligence, §§ 6-9, pp 340-350; 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 328c, pp 154-156. 5 38 Mich App 719, 726-727 ; 197 NW2d 160 (1972). 6 See, also, Braman v Bosworth, 112 Mich App 518, 520-523 ; 316 NW2d 255 (1982), for a detailed analysis of the proposition set forth in Garnet v Jenks, supra. In Braman , the plaintiff testified in her deposition that defendant Dolen was not negligent; however, another witness, defendant Bosworth, testified in his deposition that Dolen was, in fact, operating his automobile in a

1982See, also, Snyder v King, 199 Mich 345, 357 ; 165 NW 840 ; 1 ALR 893 (1917); 57 Am Jur 2d, Negligence, §§ 6-9, pp 340-350; 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 328c, pp 154-156. 5 38 Mich App 719, 726-727 ; 197 NW2d 160 (1972). 6 See, also, Braman v Bosworth, 112 Mich App 518, 520-523 ; 316 NW2d 255 (1982), for a detailed analysis of the proposition set forth in Garnet v Jenks, supra. In Braman , the plaintiff testified in her deposition that defendant Dolen was not negligent; however, another witness, defendant Bosworth, testified in his deposition that Dolen was, in fact, operating his automobile in a

1982See, also, Snyder v King, 199 Mich 345, 357 ; 165 NW 840 ; 1 ALR 893 (1917); 57 Am Jur 2d, Negligence, §§ 6-9, pp 340-350; 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 328c, pp 154-156. 5 38 Mich App 719, 726-727 ; 197 NW2d 160 (1972). 6 See, also, Braman v Bosworth, 112 Mich App 518, 520-523 ; 316 NW2d 255 (1982), for a detailed analysis of the proposition set forth in Garnet v Jenks, supra. In Braman , the plaintiff testified in her deposition that defendant Dolen was not negligent; however, another witness, defendant Bosworth, testified in his deposition that Dolen was, in fact, operating his automobile in a