Case law

People v. Baines

83 Mich. App. 570 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 23, 1978

"preponderance of the evidence”, People v Miller, 77 Mich App 381, 387 ; 258 NW2d 235 (1977), People v Billy Williams, 66 Mich App 67, 71 ; 238 NW2d 407 (1975), while at a trial on the substantive offense, guilt must be established … criminal charges, save for purposes of impeachment or rebuttal where the probationer’s revocation hearing testimony or evidence derived therefrom and his testimony on direct examination at the criminal proceeding are so clearly

People v. Parcha

227 Mich. App. 236 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1998

Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in qualifying Officer Paul Hartzell as an expert in firearms identification and examination. … While this subsection was discussed by the attorneys and the court, the court clearly stated that “we are talking about misdemeanors that contain an element of dishonesty or false statement.

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.

Fred St Onge v. Bray Cameron Larrabee & Clark Pc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2019

Our Supreme Court reversed, stating that “[i]t is well established that governmental immunity is not an affirmative defense, but is instead a characteristic of government.” Fairley, 497 Mich at 298. … The Court noted that in MCL 600.6431(1), “the Legislature has qualified a claimant’s ability to bring a claim against the state by requiring that the ‘claim or notice shall be signed and verified by the claimant before an

Beatrice Boler v. Governor

324 Mich. App. 614 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2018

This public versus private analysis was utilized in evaluating questions of municipal tort immunity. … If wearing the public hat, the municipal corporation was said to be performing governmentally and was immune from tort liability as was the state.

People of Michigan v. Demian Mendoza

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 2017

“Section 4 provides a broad grant of immunity from criminal prosecution and civil penalties to registered qualifying patients and connected primary caregivers.” Hartwick, 498 Mich at 215. … However, those dates passed without defendants presenting evidence to the trial court to establish their right to immunity.

American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Michigan Mutual Liability Co.

64 Mich. App. 315 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 1975

This case calls for different witnesses and different proofs to establish facts different from those involved in the Barden-Kalamazoo action. … The trial judge’s decision to sustain this claim is not clearly erroneous and must be affirmed.

Beznos v. Nelson

8 Mich. App. 669 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 1967

Among the prohibited acts under the ordinance is the persistent solicitation of real estate for sale or listing for sale, after the owner of the real estate clearly requests that the solicitation cease. … Having decided that there was no actionable libel, it is a moot question whether there were any legal privileges in publishing the alleged libel, or any other question dependent upon establishing libel.

City of Grand Rapids v. Brookstone Capital LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2020

To be eligible, therefore, means to be qualified, worthy, or fit to participate or receive a benefit. … The plain language of the PILOT Ordinance also clearly expresses the inferior legislative body’s intent, similarly prohibiting further judicial construction. Id.

Clarence Choice v. Howard Eugene Richards

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2025

immunity does not apply. … THE MOTOR VEHICLE EXCEPTION Defendants contend that SCCS is immune from liability because plaintiff failed to establish the elements of the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity.

Schuster v. Allstate Insurance

146 Mich. App. 578 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1985

To qualify for benefits under Michigan’s no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq.; MSA 24.13101 et seq., plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to establish that his injuries arose out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle … We are not persuaded that this finding is clearly erroneous. GCR 1063, 517.1, now MCR 2.613(C). Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

People v. Gratsch

299 Mich. App. 604 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2013

Defendant also cannot establish a void-for-vagueness challenge to the statute regarding its application to his conduct. … Upon request, 5 the prosecution has a duty to disclose the details of a witness’s plea agreement, immunity agreement, or other agreement in exchange for testimony.

People v. David Wells

102 Mich. App. 122 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1980

Miller was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. … Reversed and remanded. 1 Affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion, People v Hall & Wiltse, (Docket Nos. 77-2178, 77-2180, April 3,1979). 2 Clearly, under the Jankowski analysis, defendant’s multiple convictions of felony

Co-Jo, Inc v. Strand

226 Mich. App. 108 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 1998

Spem clearly stated that he obtained the statement from Strand pursuant to his representation in order to prepare to defend against any possible claim. … MSA 17.50(1) et seq., to establish that defendants breached their duty of care.

People of Michigan v. Walter Joseph Caswell

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2021

The issue is whether it qualifies as a treaty tribe. … Nor have the appellants clearly established the continuous informal cultural influence they concede is required. [Id.]

Estate of Lamar D Mitchell v. City of Flint

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 14, 2025

Defendants claimed immunity under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq., arguing that they owed no duty to plaintiff’s decedents, the evidence established that defendants were not grossly negligent … On remand, the trial court denied defendants’ motion for summary disposition, holding that the pleadings and documentary evidence, construed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, did not clearly establish defendants’ entitlement

Standen v. Alpena County

22 Mich. App. 416 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 1970

The county of Alpena cannot hide under the umbrella of immunity by holding a deed over its head. *425 It should not be permitted to escape its responsibilities by pointing a finger at Washington. … The finger of responsibility is clearly pointed at the connty of Alpena. Accordingly, we find that, if any damages be proven, the connty of Alpena should be held liable for damages awarded.

Donald Bergman v. Bryce R Cotanche

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 2017

This definition matches our understanding of the term and is consistent with established caselaw. … The fact remains that, regardless of how frequent, the travel along the public roads was clearly incidental to the more significant plowing tasks that were taking place.

People v. DeJonge

179 Mich. App. 225 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 1989

Both must be met in order to qualify for the exemption. MCL 380.1561(3)(a); MSA 15.41561(3)(a). … Sheridan clearly stands for the proposition that the state has a compelling interest in education.

Perry Johnson v. Board of State Canvassers

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 2022

“The primary purpose of the writ of mandamus is to enforce duties created by law, where the law has established no specific remedy and where, in justice and good government, there should be one.” … “[A] clear, legal right is one clearly founded in, or granted by, law; a right which is inferable as a matter of law from uncontroverted facts regardless of the difficulty of the legal question to be decided.”