Case law

Piper v. Tensor Corp.

71 Mich. App. 658 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1976

Defendant’s outside expert, thoroughly qualified in the halls of academia, came into the case over three years after the fire and never did test the charred remains of the lamp in the way he wanted. … established that the Tensor Lamp could not have been the instrument which caused the fire in question.”

In the Matter of Griffin

88 Mich. App. 184 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1979

The commitment, therefore, was a qualified and restricted commitment to the Michigan Department of Social Services. * * *. … Particularly relevant to the instant dispute are the juvenile code, MCL 712A.1 et seq.; MSA 27.3178(598.1) et seq. and the act establishing the Michigan Children’s Institute, MCL 400.201 et seq.; MSA 25.381 et seq.

In Re IEM

233 Mich. App. 438 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 1999

It is not the responsibility of respondent to establish the applicability of the icwa. … Once a *451 statutory ground for termination has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the respondent bears the burden of going forward with evidence that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests.

Glenwood Shopping Center Ltd. Partnership v. K Mart Corp.

136 Mich. App. 90 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 1984

Would K mart be allowed to establish and own its own transformer under MPSC Standard Rules and Regulations? "3. Would Kmart be allowed to establish its own transformer at the shopping center by Consumers Power? "4. … Would Kmart be allowed to establish its own transformer at the shopping center by Glenwood? "5.

Sheriece Buchanan v. Department of Transportation

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2026

that it was entitled to governmental immunity. … /s/ Anica Letica 2 We recognize that plaintiff argues that Yono was wrongly decided, but this Court is bound to follow “precedent from [our Supreme Court] that has not been clearly

McKissic v. Bodine

42 Mich. App. 203 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 1972

Also, it appears that defendant carried workmen’s compensation insurance, not on this particular plaintiff but on anyone who qualified for benefits under the provisions of the act. … Tested by such dissent, the appeal board was clearly *207 right in holding that the relationship of employer and employee existed between plaintiffs decedent, and the defendant Muskovitz, at the time of the fatal cave-in

W H Froh, Inc v. Domanski

252 Mich. App. 220 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2002

These circumstances amply establish defendant’s “transaction of any business within the state.” … This doctrine has been persuasively criticized as giving corporate officers jurisdictional immunity where substantive corporate law would subject them to liability- • • • Michigan courts have not applied this doctrine to

Estate of Jawad Jumaa v. Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2022

In Denney, the decedent could have brought a claim sounding in negligence under the highway exception to governmental immunity for lost earnings resulting from bodily injury that the decedent suffered when two potholes caused … Either way, Baker has clearly been overruled or superseded, and it was no longer “good law” long before this Court decided Denney.

Davis v. Wayne County Sheriff

201 Mich. App. 572 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1993

However, following a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), the court dismissed Wayne County pursuant to the doctrine of governmental immunity. … However, as stated above, Wayne County was dismissed on the basis of the doctrine of governmental immunity.

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Walter Kidde & Co., Inc.

120 Mich. App. 283 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 1982

If the evidence establishes a prima facie case, the motion must be denied. … In this case, the mediator recommended no cause of action regarding defendant Kidde, and *295 plaintiffs did not clearly accept that recommendation.

People v. Haley

153 Mich. App. 400 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 1986

Clearly, one of the prosecution's two purposes in introducing Dr. Oakey's testimony was to establish that penetration had occurred. Defense counsel did cross-examine Dr. … First, that the qualifying language, "... if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt," mutes any prejudicial effect of the balance of the statement.

Estate of Paul Newton v. McLaren Port Huron

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2025

from liability pursuant to the Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act (PHCIA), MCL 691.1471 et seq. … This Court has held that the Legislature’s “clearly-communicated intent” in this statute was to “limit this immunization to services stemming from the pandemic.”

Schoolcraft County Board of Commissioners v. Schoolcraft Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees

68 Mich. App. 654 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1976

In September, prior to the expiration of their terms of office, the board of trustees shall submit to the board of commissioners the names of not more than 2 qualified candidates for each appointment or reappointment. … Clearly, the Legislature intended that the maximum of three physicians should apply to any board, be it the first or subsequent boards.

People v. Houstina

216 Mich. App. 70 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1996

A trial court’s decision following a suppression hearing usually will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. … The trial court’s conclusion to the contrary was therefore clearly erroneous. Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the cocaine possession charge.

Netter v. Bowman

272 Mich. App. 289 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2006

Thus, Netter argues, under Kreiner, if a qualified medical person is able to diagnose the injury or impairment, thereby identifying it, then the objective manifestation element is satisfied. (4) INTERPRETING THE STATUTE “ … Despite this irony, this Court’s ruling in *304 Jackson was clearly binding on the trial court here and is also clearly binding on this Court. 58 Thus, in light of Jackson, we are bound to follow the rule that, for an impairment

Auto-Owners Insurance v. Stenberg Bros.

227 Mich. App. 45 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1998

However, a question that is neither considered nor essential to the resolution of a case is dictum and does not establish a rule of law. People v. Green, 205 Mich.App. 342, 346 , 517 N.W.2d 782 (1994). … Following the move, the tanker-trailer was clearly used as a stationary storage tank and was no longer "subject to registration" under the statute.

20241112_C366791_37_366791.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2024

“If the plaintiff pleaded an intentional tort,” then the trial court must determine “whether the defendant established that he is entitled to individual governmental immunity under the Ross test,” by showing that: … Therefore, QC’s injury was not clearly attributable to Lukes alone, but may “just as fairly” be attributed to QC. See id.

Fahnenstiel v. City of Saginaw

142 Mich. App. 46 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 1985

In general, a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if his claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right to recovery. … every time a municipality decided to reduce its millage rate, the purpose of the Headlee Amendment would be chilled since government officials would hesitate to impose a lower tax rate for fear that the lower rate would *53 establish

Schubert v. Department of Treasury

212 Mich. App. 555 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 1995

Clearly, 26 USC 165(d) more specifically applies to the instant case because that provision covers wagers. … In order to qualify for the estimation treatment, the taxpayer first must establish that he is actually entitled to some deduction. Edelson v Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 829 F2d 828, 831 (CA 9, 1987).

Jessica McCallum v. M97 Auto Dealer Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2025

The question, then, is what qualifies as “actual damages,” a term the statute does not define. … A party seeking such fees bears the burden of establishing their reasonableness. Id. at 286. We review a trial court’s attorney fee award for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 283.