Case law

Melissa Williams v. Fiduciary Services North Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 2025

“A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may only be granted when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 160. III. … It explained that, in order to obtain governmental immunity, a lower-ranking governmental employee bears the burden of establishing that (1) “[t]he acts were undertaken during the course of employment and the employee was

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.

Connelly v. Buckingham

136 Mich. App. 462 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 1984

In the present case, the conduct of the defendants clearly establishes their intent to claim title to all the land within the boundary of the fence. … The privity of estate is clearly established on the unequivocal testimony of Rodimer Seklock and James Buckingham that the disputed property was orally agreed and understood to be within the boundaries of the Seklock tract

Thomas D Esordi v. MacOmb Township

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2025

The goal of statutory interpretation is to decision forming the basis of plaintiff’s procedural due-process claim, and (3) Pozzi was entitled to qualified immunity. 3 This court rule provides, in part, that “an order … On its face, this does not “clearly authorize” the council to make a contract extending beyond its term.

Taylor v. Currie

277 Mich. App. 85 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 7, 2008

Plaintiff asserted that these irregularities prevented her from qualifying to appear on the general election ballot. … This subsection clearly addresses the distribution of applications for absent voter ballots. Under a plain reading, this subsection establishes two duties for city clerks.

Protect MI Constitution v. Secretary of State

297 Mich. App. 553 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2012

Indeed, it has long been established that while the Governor might be immune to mandamus, other executive officers, including department heads, are not. … Rather, it specified only that “[u]pon receipt of any initiative petition, the Secretary of State shall canvass the same to ascertain if such petition has been signed by the requisite number of qualified electors” and transmit

Romero v. Burt Moeke Hardwoods, Inc

280 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2008

In Haske, supra at 654 , our Supreme Court stated that even if an employee establishes a disability, he or she must further prove wage loss because, pursuant to the second sentence of MCL 418.301(4), “[t]he establishment … Clearly, plaintiff has not attempted to avoid an offer of reasonable employment in bad faith.

Menard Inc. v. Department of Treasury

302 Mich. App. 467 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2013

Exemptions are never presumed, the burden is on a claimant to establish clearly his right to exemption, and an alleged grant of exemption will be strictly construed and cannot be made out by inference or implication but must … Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving a clearly stated exemption or deduction.

Moy v. Detroit Receiving Hospital

169 Mich. App. 600 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1988

Plaintiff could not have been confused or misled in defending against defendants’ motion, and, indeed, our review of the pleadings and transcript reveals that plaintiff clearly understood the issue before the court. … We are not persuaded that an ordinary lay person is qualified to evaluate defendants’ actions in light of the applicable standard of care without the assistance of medical expert testimony.

Michael Lucero v. Department of Corrections

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2015

A plaintiff can establish that the employer’s proffered reasons for the adverse employment action qualify as pretextual by demonstrating that the reasons (1) had no basis in fact, (2) were not the actual factors … “A plaintiff can establish that the employer’s proffered reasons for the adverse employment action qualify as pretextual by demonstrating that the reasons (1) had no basis in fact, (2) were not the actual factors motivating

Michael Lucero v. Department of Corrections

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2015

A plaintiff can establish that the employer’s proffered reasons for the adverse employment action qualify as pretextual by demonstrating that the reasons (1) had no basis in fact, (2) were not the actual factors … “A plaintiff can establish that the employer’s proffered reasons for the adverse employment action qualify as pretextual by demonstrating that the reasons (1) had no basis in fact, (2) were not the actual factors motivating

Cedroni Associates, Inc. v. Tomblinson, Harburn Associates, Architects & Planners, Inc.

290 Mich. App. 577 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2010

Here, issues of fact were established and, accordingly, we reverse and remand. I. BACKGROUND The Davison Community Schools (DCS) opened bidding on a construction project that entailed work at two school sites. … In Trepel, 135 Mich App at 377 , this Court noted that the defendant’s counterclaim of tortious interference “clearly allege[d] unethical conduct — sending letters knowing them to contain false allegations.” *601 2.

In Re Attorney General for Investigative Subpoenas

282 Mich. App. 585 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2009

But that section is clearly different. This section has not been amended. … There is no qualifying there.

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.

People v. O'LEARY

6 Mich. App. 115 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 1967

A finding of probable cause does not require that the guilt of the defendant be established beyond a reasonable doubt. … However, it should be remembered that there were three eyewitnesses to the accident who testified clearly and positively that the accident occurred in Mrs.

Grant Bauserman v. Unemployment Insurance Agency

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2019

In the Court of Claims, the Agency argued that it should not be held liable for plaintiffs’ claims on the basis of governmental immunity. … Clearly, the clause is violated only if there has been a deprivation of life, liberty, or property.

Pease v. Director of Michigan Department of Social Services

105 Mich. App. 689 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 1981

The AFDC program was established by the Social Security Act and has been described as based on a scheme of "cooperative federalism”. … noteworthy that the Social Security Act does not expressly prohibit state transfer-of-assets laws and we are guided by the following principle: "If Congress is authorized to act in a field, it should manifest its intention clearly

Paulette Elher v. Dwijen Misra Jr Md

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2014

And “nothing in the text of this Rule establishes ‘general acceptance’ as an absolute prerequisite to admissibility.” Daubert, 509 US at 588. … Priebe’s extensive experience in laprascopic gallbladder surgery qualified him to opine as to what could and should have been seen when the anatomy is clearly delineated.

Dennis Lee Tomasik v. State of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2019

Grissom establishes that a new trial may be granted on the basis of impeachment evidence. … In lieu of filing an answer, the state filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (claim barred by immunity granted by law).

Estate of Charles Holmes v. Ccla 9 LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2026

A statute is presumed to be constitutional “unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). … (citation and quotation marks omitted); Attorney Gen v Mich Pub Serv Comm, 249 Mich App 424, 436; 642 NW2d 691 (2002) (explaining that “[o]ne who asserts an uncompensated taking claim must first establish that a vested property