Legal Opinion

People v. Seewald

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 2016No. Docket 150146PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLarsen, J.

This case requires us to decide what alleged conduct is sufficient to warrant a bindover on the peculiar charge of “conspiring to commit a legal act in an illegal manner,” MCL 750.157a(d). In an anomalous reversal of roles, defendant, Paul Seewald, argues that his aim was illicit through and through. He never agreed to commit any legal act. Rather he conspired to commit an illegal act illegally; and that double illegality should set him free. The prosecution, for its part, argues that while defendant’s agreed-to means were surely illegal, his conspiratorial ends were purely legal-, and that…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. United States v. BatchelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Sun Valley Foods Co. v. WardMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  3. People v. DuncanMichigan Supreme Court · 1977
  4. People v. StoneMichigan Supreme Court · 2001
  5. People v. DossMichigan Supreme Court · 1979

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. People v. PinkneyMichigan Supreme Court · 2018
  2. People of Michigan v. Tremel AndersonMichigan Supreme Court · 2018
  3. Allstate Insurance Co v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CoMichigan Court of Appeals · 2017
  4. People of Michigan v. Samer ShamiMichigan Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Yono v. Department of TransportationMichigan Supreme Court · 2016

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API