Billy Butler v. Malvin Carvin Pitts, Jr. v. Marilyn James Morris

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting a void for vagueness challenge based on the assertion that the statute jury “unstructured and unlimited discretion to determine whether he had committed an offense”
• “A battery is the wilful and harmful or offensive touching of another person which results from an act intended to cause such a contact.”
• legislative codification of a judicially-defined requirement without the Legislature defining it itself gives rise to a logical conclusion of a legislative intent to adopt the judiciary’s construction of that requirement
• “[W]e conclude that MCL 750.81d is designed to protect persons in the identified occupations, MCL 750.81d(7)(b), who are lawfully engaged in conducting the duties of their occupations, from physical interference or the threat of physical interference.”
• “[W]e hold that the statute is not facially overbroad because state actors cannot under this statute arrest and convict persons for only utilizing constitutionally protected words in opposition to the actions of, for example, a police officer.”
• quotation marks and citations omitted.] There are scant exceptions to the rule that the jury’s verdict is sacrosanct. We may only insert ourselves as “the 13th juror” where “exceptional circumstances” exist. People v Bosca, 310 Mich App 1, 13; 871 NW2d 307 (2015

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).