Case law

People v. Murphy (On Remand)

282 Mich. App. 571 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 2009

Approximately seven months later, a witness observed the defendant standing near a dry cleaning establishment holding a large brown bag. … Rather, Judge Thomas clearly ruled that if the prosecutor had “something else that might make it both relevant and material, then it’s in.”

Pamela Eidt v. Great Lakes Water Authority

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2025

The trial court additionally resolved that the electrical system for the Bluehill PS was not included in the definition of a sewage disposal system and, thus, could not qualify as a defect. … Plaintiff must still establish, however, that defendants knew or “in the exercise of reasonable diligence” should have known about the failure of the pumps to operate in an overvoltage situation. MCL 691.1417(3)(c).

in Re Mgr

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2018

The trial court did not clearly err by declining to terminate putative father’s parental rights. … To qualify as a “do something” father, a putative father must demonstrate that he has either (1) established a custodial relationship with the child, or (2) provided substantial and regular support or care, within his ability

People v. Hamblin

224 Mich. App. 87 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 1997

Again, there is no requirement in the statute that in order to establish the Class A misdemeanor offense of criminal mischief, it is incumbent upon the State to also establish that repair work to the damaged property actually … This clearly would not promote the statute’s purpose of making offenders accountable for their actions. See id.

Herald Co. v. Kent County Sheriff's Department

261 Mich. App. 32 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 26, 2004

improperly bolstered their public interest theory with a baseless argument that they had reason to believe that the deputy and the trooper knew that they were safe soliciting prostitution because they believed they were immune … This Court is not saying that those records establish preferential treatment [and is not] saying that those records disprove preferential treatment.

Eberhard v. Harper-Grace Hospitals

179 Mich. App. 24 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 1989

On appeal, we are not presented with any issues pertaining to the trial court’s application of the doctrine of charitable immunity to this case. … The current statute clearly incorporates the discovery rule, while adding a six-year limit on causes of action.

Elher v. Misra

308 Mich. App. 276 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 2014

Priebe’s extensive experience in laparoscopic gallbladder surgery qualified him to opine as to what could and should have been seen when the anatomy is clearly delineated. … MRE 702 permits a qualified expert to testify “in the form of an opinion!.]”

Keefer v. C R Bard, Inc

110 Mich. App. 563 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1981

Three factors must be established to the satisfaction of the trial judge before expert opinion is deemed admissible: the witness must be qualified as an expert in his field, there must be facts which require an expert’s interpretation … With respect to a lack of proper foundation for this testimony, the record establishes that defendant’s own offer of proof indicated that the proper foundation could not be established.

Najor v. Wayne National Life Insurance

23 Mich. App. 260 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1970

This action for reformation of a contract is equitable in nature and while it is heard cíe novo on the record by this Court, we give great weight to the findings of the trial judge and will not reverse unless they are clearly … John Harris was qualified as an expert witness.

Kewin v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance

79 Mich. App. 639 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1977

At that time, it is doubtful that any type of insurance contract would have qualified for the exception discussed by Justice Smith. … In Bolden v John Hancock Mutual Insurance Co, supra, fn 3, a Federal district judge held that disability insurance did not qualify for the Stewart exception.

Butler v. Butler

122 Mich. App. 361 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1983

Finally, the reference to the sons as single men also supports a conclusion that the qualifying terms only referred to the sons. … The original deeds to the properties clearly show that the property originally was held by entireties.

Mino v. Clio School District

255 Mich. App. 60 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2003

In addition to citing the release of claims provision, the circuit court found that there was a qualified privilege to speak in meetings. … Given our disposition of this case, it is unnecessary for us to examine plaintiffs’ claim that governmental immunity does not apply in this case.

People v. Till

80 Mich. App. 16 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1977

from prosecution; *21 (3) He was also granted immunity in four other murder cases. … Edgar was clearly guilty of murder in the second degree, as found by the jury.” Id. at 134-135; 214 NW at 235 . (Emphasis added.)

Tanika Anderson v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2024

PLAINTIFF SUFFICIENTLY PLEADED RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a claim for respondeat superior in avoidance of governmental immunity and established a genuine issue of material fact regarding the … We agree that plaintiff could have more clearly set forth the basis for her claim by specifically referencing MCL 691.1405 in her complaint.

York v. 50th District Court

212 Mich. App. 345 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 1995

A motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) should be granted only when the *348 claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery … A prima facie case of sex discrimination is established where it is proven that a plaintiff is a member of a protected class, was qualified for an available position, and applied for the position, but was rejected under circumstances

People v. Harris

261 Mich. App. 44 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 26, 2004

The prosecutor must establish a valid waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 645 . … Thus, the trial court’s ruling that defendant effectively waived his right to counsel was not clearly erroneous.

Roy v. Detroit Bank & Trust Co.

137 Mich. App. 419 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 1984

In Michigan, a valid spendthrift trust restricts the alienability of property in the trust and immunizes it from the claims of creditors. … Clearly, William H. Edgar had a beneficial interest in the trust income; that is the nature of a trust, Frost, supra.

Owen R Schroeder v. County of Muskegon Dhs

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2023

A court should grant a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) only when the claims alleged are “so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Id. … were entitled to absolute immunity pursuant to Martin.

Estate of Delana Gentry v. Ryan Baugh

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 2024

MCR 2.116(C)(7) permits a court to dismiss an action on grounds that the action is barred by “immunity granted by law.” … Regardless, evidence that the ambulance’s lights were flashing after the accident does not clearly establish that the ambulance’s lights were flashing when it proceeded into the intersection on a red light, so a question

Limale Ba v. Pittsfield Charter Township

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 21, 2025

“The trial court properly grants a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) when the undisputed facts establish that the moving party is entitled to immunity granted by law.” … The trial court did not err when it decided the undisputed facts establish Pittsfield is not entitled to governmental immunity. III.