Legal Opinion

People v. Considine

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided September 30, 1992No. Docket 130768PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant was originally charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (ouil) or having a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more (ubal), MCL 257.625(1) and (2); MSA 9.2325(1) and (2). Following a jury trial in the district court, hé was convicted of ubal. Defendant was subsequently tried by the court on a supplemental information and found to be a second offender under the enhancement provisions of the ouil and ubal statute, MCL 257.625(5); MSA 9.2325(5). He unsuccessfully moved in the trial court for a new trial. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. BiggeMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
  2. People v. DukesMichigan Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. People v. ThinelMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. People v. ThompsonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1992

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. People v. McPhersonMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
  2. City of Westland v. OkopskiMichigan Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. People v. SimpsonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. People v. MooneyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. People v. CoonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1993

7 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