In Re Contempt of Tanksley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court’s failure to hold a contempt hearing on a charged personal protection order violation -3- within 72 hours of a respondent’s arrest without releasing him from custody, as required by statute, required dismissal of the charge without prejudice
• “Given the clear legislative mandate that a respondent be afforded a hearing on a charged [personal protection order] violation within seventy-two hours, we hold that a violation of the time limit expressed in MCL 764.15b(2)(a) or MCR 3.708(F)(1)(a) demands dismissal of the charge.”
• “Given the clear legislative mandate that a respondent be afforded a hearing on a charged [personal protection order] violation within seventy-two hours, we hold that a violation of the time limit expressed in MCL 764.15b(2)(a) or MCR 3.708(F)(1)(a) demands dismissal of the charge.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).