Case law

Douglas Williams v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2025

In this case, we acknowledge that the trial court reasonably invoked Sharp as establishing a bright-line rule that curbs are part of a “highway,” not a “sidewalk.” … Sharp did not clearly define the “curb” at issue in that case. However, Sharp did explain that the curb was separated from the sidewalk itself by a “grass verge.” Sharp, 292 Mich App at 352.

Papcum v. L R Jacobs Construction Co.

95 Mich. App. 746 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 1980

The qualifying words 'substantial and controlling’ do not appear in the Federal Rule and they were not in the draft of the Rule 505 as it was submitted to the Supreme Court. * * * Thus these words were added by the Supreme … Balancing the benefits against the disadvantages to the court and parties is a matter requiring sound judicial discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be overrruled on appeal unless it is clearly abused.

Poe v. City of Detroit

179 Mich. App. 564 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 1989

As for the defendant city’s claim of governmental immunity, we note only that this issue was not raised or addressed in the trial court and, thus, is not properly before us. … The other bus driver’s estimate of two to three minutes clearly comes within this definition.

One v. MacOmb Intermediate School District

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2023

Before the 2017 school year commenced, representatives of MISD created an individualized education program (IEP) for each plaintiff to establish the school district’s plan for addressing their unique educational needs and … Moreover, because plaintiffs’ CPL claim does not fit within one of the GTLA’s enumerated exceptions and the CPL’s unambiguous language clearly does not waive or abrogate the immunity provided by the GTLA, MISD is entitled

Rachel Amy Maurer v. Fremont Insurance Company

325 Mich. App. 685 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 2018

Maurer does not qualify as an owner for purposes of the no-fault act. During his deposition, Mr. … Plaintiff is therefore unable to establish any unreasonable delay on behalf of defendant.

Victoria Morales v. City of Lincoln Park

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2016

It is well established that statutory notice requirements must be interpreted and enforced as plainly written and that no judicially created saving construction is permitted to avoid a clear statutory mandate.” … The procedures requiring compliance address the elements of proof to qualify for compensation, MCL 691.1417(3), (4), and the provision of notice, MCL 691.1419(1), (2) and (3).

Favors v. Department of Corrections

192 Mich. App. 131 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1991

The burden of proof is on the governmental agency to establish that the exception is applicable to the requested records. MCL 15.240(1); MSA 4.1801(10)(1). … Nevertheless, we do not believe that this failure requires reversal because the trial court clearly reached the correct result.

People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2021

In response, the prosecution argued that the MRTMA only provides an individual under the age of 21 with immunity from criminal prosecution for simple possession of marijuana. … Defendant maintains that MCL 257.625(8), with its lower, no-tolerance standard of driving with any amount of marijuana in one’s system, clearly conflicts with the provision in the MRTMA that requires the state to prove that

Shivers v. Schmiege

285 Mich. App. 636 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2009

Maganti’s assessment that plaintiffs condition during the night qualified as a medical emergency. When Dr. Mark W. … Thus, plaintiff must show he was “hemiplegic, paraplegic, or quadriplegic” to qualify for the higher cap.

People of Michigan v. Gary J Shaver Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2024

Therefore, Betts established a new rule. … Clearly, reliance on the 2011 SORA was less widespread than the sentencing guidelines.

People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2021

In response, the prosecution argued that the MRTMA only provides an individual under the age of 21 with immunity from criminal prosecution for simple possession of marijuana. … Defendant maintains that MCL 257.625(8), with its lower, no-tolerance standard of driving with any amount of marijuana in one’s system, clearly conflicts with the provision in the MRTMA that requires the state to prove that

Department of Labor & Economic Growth, Unemployment Insurance Agency v. Dykstra

283 Mich. App. 212 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2009

TRA BENEFITS Under the Trade Act, Congress established a program of benefits intended to supplement state unemployment benefits for workers who have lost their jobs as a result of competition from imports. … Instead, it authorized the secretary to establish a new period after the revocation of the waiver.

Lewis v. Dayton-Hudson Corp.

128 Mich. App. 165 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 1983

This room was for use by the public on conditions established by the business. … However, we hold that where, as here, signs are clearly posted notifying customers that they are under surveillance while inside the fitting room of a retail establishment, the “modicum of privacy” *173 the fitting room appears

Hoste v. Shanty Creek Management, Inc

221 Mich. App. 144 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 1997

Plaintiff did qualify as an employee of Shanty Creek under § 161(l)(b) of the WDCA, MCL 418.161(l)(b); MSA 17.237(161)(l)(b), because he rendered services to it. … The commission clearly erred in its analysis of the second factor, whether the work is an integral part of the employer’s business that contributes to a common objective.

Salem Springs, LLC v. Salem Township

312 Mich. App. 210 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 2015

That is, the statute clearly refers to “any citizen of the county,” meaning that, assuming a corporation may be a “citizen” for purposes of MCL 600.4545, it would not be sufficient to establish citizenship in the United States … to qualify as a “citizen” for purposes of this provision.

20241217_C365895_56_365895.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2024

Peltier, however, was clearly hit and run over by the bus. Afterward, Williams can be heard saying, “Oh man,” and another individual can be heard shouting something that sounded like “Oh man, what did you do?” … from the driver, but to recover damages from the owner of the vehicle, the governmental agency, they need only establish ordinary negligence.

People v. Grace

50 Mich. App. 604 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 1973

Furthermore, any prejudice due to the prosecution’s extension beyond proper scope does not satisfy the substantial miscarriage of justice test and was clearly outweighed by the unusual advantage the court allowed in granting … In those circumstances, the Court held that it was reversible error not to qualify such instructions with language such as the verdict must be that of each individual juror.

In Re Hector M Hernandez Supplemental Needs Trust

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2024

-5- “established solely for the benefit of an individual under 65 years of age,” allows the individual to continue to qualify for medical assistance. 42 USC 1396p(c)(2) … And, when viewed in the light most favorable to Luisa, the extrinsic evidence does not clearly and convincingly show that Hector intended for the clause to allocate his property upon his death.

Croda v. Sarnacki

106 Mich. App. 51 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 5, 1981

Miller, was not required to be a gynecologist or urologist in order to qualify as an expert witness. … To be a qualified medical expert, the witness need not necessarily be of the same school or specialty as the defendant.

Botsford General Hospital v. Citizens Insurance

195 Mich. App. 127 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 1992

Assuming that Noel was not an owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, he qualifies for assigned claims pip benefits. … VII Citizens argues that the trial court erred in giving the following jury instruction: In Michigan, two or more writings to a transaction, if they clearly relate to the same transaction, are to be construed together.