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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 10 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from People v. Williams.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Williams Anchor | green | “sentences are not disproportionate in relation to the crimes, they are therefore not cruel or unusual.” | 4 |
| 2 | People v. Kennebrew | green | “as a general rule, a sentence that falls within the guidelines' range is presumed to be neither excessive nor disparate.” | 3 |
| 3 | People v. Dukes | green | “milbourn left intact the court's prior observation, in people v broden, 428 mich 343, 354 ; 408 nw2d 789 (1987), that sentences falling within the recommended guidelines range are presumptively not excessively severe or unfairly disparate.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.