People v. Jackson

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the prosecution is not required to monitor a subpoenaed witness, who it reasonably expects to appear, to “ensure his attendance at trial”
• where the trial court denied the prosecution’s motion for a continuance brought because a subpoenaed witness failed to appear at trial, the court abused its discretion in dismissing the case without prejudice on the defendant’s motion
• The Michigan Supreme Court noted that the trial court, when denying an adjournment to secure the witness’s presence, did not address the requirements of MCR 2.503(C) or consider how the prosecution’s efforts to secure the witness’s presence did not meet those requirements.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Coy
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 2003-10-07· cited 232×
• People v. Yost
  Michigan Supreme Court· 2003-04-23· cited 150×
• Joshua Tackett v. Tony Trierweiler
  Sixth Circuit· 2020-04-15· cited 119×
• People v. Grace
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 2003-10-29· cited 16×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Spalding v. Spalding
  Michigan Supreme Court· 1959-02-19· cited 404×
• People v. Charles O. Williams
  Michigan Supreme Court· 1972-02-25· cited 142×
• People v. Burby
  Michigan Supreme Court· 1922-03-30· cited 7×
• McMillan v. Larned
  Michigan Supreme Court· 1879-10-08· cited 4×