Case law

Brown v. Beckwith Evans Co.

192 Mich. App. 158 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1991

The wcab affirmed the award for the closed period, but found that plaintiff failed to qualify for the open award under § 373. … Section 373 was clearly intended to except retirees from the disability standard set forth in §301(4) of the wdca, MCL 418.301(4); MSA 17.237(301X4).

Stopczynski v. Ford Motor Co.

200 Mich. App. 190 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1993

This does not mean that by doing so an employer establishes just-cause employment rather than at-will employment. … Unlike the present case and Rowe, supra, the express contract in Schippers did not establish an at-will employment relationship: On the other hand, the handbook in this case did not, as did the handbook in Rowe , clearly

Local 1383 of the International Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Warren

89 Mich. App. 135 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1979

, the act itself is explicit concerning the method of rescinding or repealing the established civil service system. … Allen: As long as our intent is clearly understood. "Mr. Martin: It is clearly understood. "Mr. Allen: That will be satisfactory. Thank you.” 5 Our decision should not be read as prohibiting bargaining on this subject.

City of Warren v. Clayton Jamers Bezy

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 16, 2019

This Court explained that under MCL 333.26424(a), a qualifying patient (such as the plaintiff in Ter Beek) was granted immunity from “ ‘arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or [from being] denied any right or privilege … This Court held: The MMMA provides immunity from arrest, prosecution, and penalty in any manner and prohibits the denial of any right or privilege to qualifying medical marijuana patients and

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).

Meehan v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.

174 Mich. App. 538 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 1989

[SJI2d 117.02.] *569 Clearly, it is defendant’s burden to prove his defenses. There is immunity only if there is full and fair disclosure. Defendant did not argue full and fair disclosure nor do the proofs support it. … Defendant lastly argues that the jury’s verdict was clearly excessive.

Cb v. Lincoln Park Public Schools

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 14, 2026

All of the claims have the same elements necessary to establish a tort: duty, breach, causation, and injury. In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367, 390; 835 NW2d 545 (2013). … Nor did plaintiff plead factual allegations in his complaint that would clearly fit within one of the GTLA’s exception. Plaintiff repeatedly points to the alleged gross negligence of the individual defendants.

People v. Williams

228 Mich. App. 546 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1998

After the trial court received this statement, § 4 of the cspa required it to appoint two qualified psychiatrists in accordance with a specified procedure to examine the alleged criminal sexual psychopath and file written … Civilly committed persons and those acquitted on the basis of insanity may be discharged whenever the court determines that the committed person qualifies as “no longer . . . requiring treatment.”

County Road Ass'n v. Board of State Canvassers

89 Mich. App. 299 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1979

The statute here in question is clearly distinguishable from that in Board of Education, supra . … Our Supreme Court has clearly indicated in Good Roads that the statutory scheme which the acts before us amend, qualifies them for an exemption from referendum.

Jonathan Roach v. Detroit Community Schools

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2022

See Yoches v Dearborn, 320 Mich App 461, 476; 904 NW2d 887 (2017) (“Although Subsection (2)(c) establishes an exception to the grant of immunity to an officer or employee of a governmental agency, it does not provide that … Instead, “[t]he party must clearly identify the disputed issue for which it asserts discovery must be conducted and support the issue with independent evidence.” Id.

Fraser Public Schools District v. Kolon

35 Mich. App. 441 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 1971

We do no violence to the settled principle that the findings of fact of a trial judge, sitting as trier of the facts, will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, because we reverse for an error of law. … meaning and will furnish cause, if established, for holding a mistake of the offending bidder to be one not remediable in equity.

People of Michigan v. Robert Elijah Anthony

327 Mich. App. 24 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2019

Defendant maintains that the more recent passage of the MMMA calls into question the Michigan Supreme Court's prior holding in Kazmierczak , which allows the smell of marijuana alone to establish probable cause. … The Court noted that even private property qualifies as long as it was open for use by the general public.

People v. Schollaert

194 Mich. App. 158 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 4, 1992

According to the Court, a defendant does not have a constitutional right to immunity from contradiction. … We disagree. *168 This Court will reverse a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress only if the ruling was clearly erroneous.

People v. Jackson

180 Mich. App. 339 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 1989

While deference to the magistrate is appropriate in marginal cases, "a magistrate is no more qualified than a reviewing court to determine whether probable cause may be found within the four corners of an affidavit.” … Here, the record does not even clearly indicate whether any other controlled substances were discovered during the search of Ms. Humphrey’s person or the house.

People of Michigan v. Thomas Moorman

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2020

In Kazmierczak, this Court held that “the smell of marijuana alone by a person qualified to know the odor may establish probable cause to search a motor vehicle, pursuant to the motor vehicle exception to the warrant requirement … To summarize, under Kazmierczak, “the smell of marijuana alone by a person qualified to know the odor may establish probable cause to search a motor vehicle, pursuant to the motor vehicle exception to the warrant requirement

Antton Brewer v. Paul Adams

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2026

)(10) based on a claim of governmental immunity. … Clearly, the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) was effectively an order denying governmental immunity, which is appealable by right.

Noah Fairchild v. City of Southfield

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2025

While plaintiff clearly intends to suggest that the condition of the road deteriorated between October 2020 and November 2023, plaintiff presents no evidence that the condition of the road as presented in the November 2023 … Because plaintiff has not shown that defendant had notice of the defect at issue in this case, he cannot establish that the highway exception to governmental immunity applies.

20251112_C369349_58_369349.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2025

Approximately three months later, the Legislature enacted the PHCIA, effective October 22, 2020, thereby formally codifying, in part, the immunity provisions established in EO 2020-30 and EO 2020-61, as follows: … The alleged acts, omissions, and injuries were wholly unrelated to the pandemic, so deeming defendant immune would contravene the Legislature’s clearly-communicated intent to limit this immunization to services

Smith v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

168 Mich. App. 773 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1988

Plaintiffs claim that the test, which was required to qualify for track foreman, had a disparate impact on defendant’s black employees. … To establish a claim of disparate treatment, plaintiffs must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a prima facie case of discrimination exists.

People of Michigan v. Jessica Michelle Englebrecht

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2025

Julie Warthman, a certified public accountant, was qualified at trial as an expert in accounting and tracing. … Williams was qualified as an expert in financial investigations.