§

People v. Olear

495 Mich. 939 (Mich. 2014)
People v. Olear

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Phillips

    No. 336281 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2018)

    This Court has previously held that an "injustice" might be created where there was an intervening change in law, see People v Spinks, 206 Mich App 488, 496-497; 522 NW2d 875 (1994), or "where the prior opinion was clearly erroneous," Phillips, 227 Mich App at 34, citing People v Wells, 103 Mich App 455, 463; 303 NW2d 226 (1981). See also People v Olear, 495 Mich 939; 843 NW2d 480 (2014) (reversing an opinion of this Court to determine "whether [there was] intervening case law providing an exception to the law of the case . . . ."). Our opinion in Phillips II clearly determined that defendant's letter was not a confession, and thus the issue defendant again raises were properly considered with regard to the corpus delicti rule and the establishment of the corpus delicti of murder.

  2. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury

    316 Mich. App. 346 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016)

    The procedural posture of this case resulted in arguments regarding the applicability of the law-of- the-case doctrine, which doctrine is subject to an exception when there is an intervening change of law. See People v. Olear, 495 Mich. 939, 843 N.W.2d 480 (2014) ; Grace v. Grace, 253 Mich.App. 357, 363, 655 N.W.2d 595 (2002). In Grievance Administrator v. Lopatin, 462 Mich. 235, 259–260, 612 N.W.2d 120 (2000), our Supreme Court explained the nature of the law-of-the-case doctrine:

  3. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury

    316 Mich. App. 346 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016)

    The procedural posture of this case resulted in arguments regarding the applicability of the law-of- the-case doctrine, which doctrine is subject to an exception when there is an intervening change of law. See People v. Olear, 495 Mich. 939, 843 N.W.2d 480 (2014) ; Grace v. Grace, 253 Mich.App. 357, 363, 655 N.W.2d 595 (2002). In Grievance Administrator v. Lopatin, 462 Mich. 235, 259–260, 612 N.W.2d 120 (2000), our Supreme Court explained the nature of the law-of-the-case doctrine:

  4. People v. Robinson

    No. 318264 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Defendant ostensibly is relying on the intervening caselaw exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine. People v Olear, 495 Mich 939; 843 NW2d 480 (2014). In Watkins/Pullen, 491 Mich at 486-491, the Michigan Supreme Court clarified that when admitting evidence pursuant to MCL 768.27a, an analysis of MRE 403 must be conducted.