People v. Neal

8 Citing cases

  1. Lancaster v. Metrish

    735 F. Supp. 2d 750 (E.D. Mich. 2010)   Cited 2 times

    The general rule is that judicial decisions are given full retroactive effect. People v Neal, 459 Mich 72, 80; 586 NW 2d 716 (1998). In criminal cases, however, ex post facto and due process concerns prevent retroactive application in some cases.

  2. Lincoln v. General Motors Corp.

    461 Mich. 483 (Mich. 2000)   Cited 34 times

    Likewise, questions concerning the retroactivity of earlier judicial decisions are for this Court to decide de novo as matters of law. See, generally, Michigan Educational Employees Mut Ins Co v Morris, 460 Mich. 180, 189-197; 596 N.W.2d 142 (1999), and People v Neal, 459 Mich. 72, 80-81; 586 N.W.2d 716 (1998). The issue before us is whether to apply the holding of Wozniak I to this plaintiff, so that he can obtain the statutory benefits that were denied him in the years following the decision in Lopez.

  3. People v. Johnson

    302 Mich. App. 450 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In People v Johnson, 302 Mich App 450; 838 NW2d 889 (2013), this Court determined that McQueen II was entitled to full retroactive application.

    The general rule is that judicial decisions are given full retroactive effect and complete prospective application is limited to decisions that overrule clear and uncontradicted caselaw. People v. Neal, 459 Mich. 72, 80, 586 N.W.2d 716 (1998). But “[t]he retroactive application of an unforeseeable interpretation of a criminal statute, if detrimental to a defendant, may violate the Due Process Clause.”

  4. People v. Bennett

    241 Mich. App. 511 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 7 times

    There are three relevant inquiries when considering retroactivity of a judicial order. People v Neal, 459 Mich. 72, 80-81; 586 N.W.2d 716 (1998). "[T]he three inquiries concern (a) the purpose of the new rule, (b) the general reliance on the old rule, and (c) the effect of retroactive application of the new rule on the administration of justice."

  5. Fieger v. Michigan Supreme Court

    Civil Action No. 06-11684 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 17, 2006)

    After the federal courts abstained from considering the constitutional question, the Michigan Supreme Court remedied a possible constitutional error of a court rule treating indigents differently than non-indigents who requested transcripts and changed MCR in 1998. See Boyd v. Michigan Supreme Court, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 36181 (6th Cir. 1995) (unpublished) (affirming district court's decision to abstain from entertaining constitutional challenge of Michigan Court rules); see also, People of the State of Michigan v. Neal, 459 Mich. 72 (1998) (affirming appeals court decision finding MCR 6.425(F)(2)(a)(i), 6.433(D) and 7.210(B)(1)(a) improperly affected a defendant's right to effective assistance of appellate counsel). Thus for the reasons stated above,

  6. People v. Jackson

    459 Mich. 978 (Mich. 1999)

    In this case where the trial transcript was ordered before May 6, 1998, the defendant preserved the issue of the omission of a transcript of the jury voir dire by the court reporter. People v. Neal, 459 Mich. 72 (1998). In all other respects leave to appeal is denied.

  7. People v. Jackson

    No. 112486 (Mich. Feb. 25, 1999)

    After the defendant receives a copy of that transcript, he may within twenty-eight days file in the Court of Appeals an appeal of right relating only to issues, if any, arising from the voir dire. People v. Neal, 459 Mich. 72 (1998). In all other respects, the defendant's application for leave to appeal is DENIED because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

  8. People v. Jackson

    459 Mich. 942 (Mich. 1999)

    After the defendant receives a copy of that transcript, he may within twenty-eight days file in the Court of Appeals an appeal of right relating only to issues, if any, arising from the voir dire. People v. Neal, 459 Mich. 72 (1998). In all other respects the defendant's application for leave to appeal is denied.