Case law

Carmen Mendez-Velez v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 2015

The trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition, in which defendant asserted that plaintiff failed to allege or establish facts in avoidance of governmental immunity. … -1- in order to establish a cause of action under the highway exception to governmental immunity.

John C Haedrich v. Joshua M Akers

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2019

Akers contended that plaintiff’s claims were barred by qualified governmental immunity and that plaintiff failed to plead in avoidance of governmental immunity. … The trial court concluded that the libel claims were barred by qualified governmental immunity, considering that plaintiff failed to present any evidence rebutting Akers’ affidavit and that the affidavit established the elements

People v. Daniel

207 Mich. App. 47 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1994

However, defendant has failed to establish that these materials were discoverable material that the prosecutor refused to disclose. … Because, Officer Maier was not qualified as an expert on drug enforcement, the admissibility of his opinion is governed by MRE 701, which allows opinion testimony by a lay witness if it is rationally based on the perception

Seventeenth District Probate Court v. Gladwin County Board of Commissioners

155 Mich. App. 433 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1986

The plaintiff presented a witness who was qualified, without objection by the defendant, as an expert in the field of salary administration. … In construing comparable "clearly erroneous” language in Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Procedure, the United States Supreme Court has stated that "[a] finding is 'clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to

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).

James v. Leco Corp.

170 Mich. App. 184 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 1988

By this argument the plaintiffs attempt to convert the consideration clause which actually establishes their own cause of action into a proviso clause against Consumers’ immunity under the statute. … Clearly, plaintiffs’ decedents used defendant’s property for recreational purposes, traversing it in order to walk on the pier.

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.

Sinai Hospital v. Sivak

88 Mich. App. 68 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 16, 1979

Clearly, the statute in effect at the time the alleged tort was committed required that the insured be jointly or severally liable upon a judgment for the same wrong. … "Of course, if a statute granting the right to recover contribution against a joint tortfeasor lays down certain conditions qualifying that right, such conditions must be met by the contribution claimant.

People v. Carter

96 Mich. App. 694 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 1980

That right, however, is: "* * * qualified by the necessity of compliance with 'established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence’”. 70 … The statutory language does not clearly eliminate the possible validity of this argument.

In Re RAYMOND ESTATE

276 Mich. App. 22 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 2007

THE FIRST CLAUSE It is undeniable that the language of the first clause expressly qualifies the class of “brothers and sisters” *29 with the phrase “that survive me.” … Indeed, respondents concede that “the first part of the disputed clause established a ‘qualified group’ of ‘those that survive me.’ ” Thus, the plain language of this half of the first clause, taken alone, clearly limits

Bowers v. Bowers

198 Mich. App. 320 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 1993

However, a court may not immunize its findings from review by purporting to base them on pure credibility determinations in the face of other evidence. Beason v Beason, 435 Mich 791, 804 ; 460 NW2d 207 (1990). … Here, the girl clearly had an established custodial environment with her mother until custody was granted to the father following the first trial. Bowers , at 54.

Prins v. Michigan State Police

291 Mich. App. 586 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2011

“Well-established principles guide this Court’s statutory construction efforts.” Bloomfield Charter Twp v Oakland Co Clerk, 253 Mich App 1, 10 ; 654 NW2d 610 (2002). … Prins had 180 days from July 29, 2008, to commence a circuit court action, and thus her lawsuit qualified as timely filed.

Frank Sakorafos v. Charter Township of Lyon

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2023

The trial court further held that the claim of civil conspiracy with regard to Dolan, the Township supervisor, was barred by governmental immunity. … In doing so, the trial court clearly erred. The correct standard is whether plaintiffs “can show damages of a special character distinct and different from the injury suffered by the public generally.”

People v. Hernandez-Garcia

266 Mich. App. 416 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 2005

Thus, the prosecution need only establish that an accused had the intent to do the act prohibited — that is, “to knowingly carry the weapon on one’s person or in an automobile.” … Thus, if the language is clear, no further construction is necessary or allowed to expand what the Legislature clearly intended to cover. [Citations and internal punctuation omitted.]

Hill v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

207 Mich. App. 504 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1994

Under this provision, the original lease agreement between Toliver and gmac does not qualify as a lease intended as security and may not be deemed the equivalent of other *513 transactions that qualify as security interests … While some months have thirty-one days, and § 401a clearly defines "owner” in terms of lease terms that are greater or less than thirty days, we decline to interpret this statutory provision in such a way as to deem gmac

Bettina Winkler v. Marist Fathers of Detroit Inc

321 Mich. App. 436 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2017

Here it appears that Notre Dame Prep High School is a public or private institution or School system; Defendant fails to establish that the PWDCRA does not apply to the Notre Dame Prep High School given [the … Thus, the restrictions in MCL 37.1402 apply to defendant if defendant qualifies as an “educational institution” under MCL 37.1401.

Rollert v. Department of Civil Service

228 Mich. App. 534 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1998

We cannot conceive of an inteipretation of the HCRA that would be better designed to discourage the hiring of qualified handicapped employees. … The more appropriate analysis is clearly whether plaintiffs handicap was unrelated to his ability to perform his job at the time he was enrolled in the benefit program.

In the Matter of Riffe

147 Mich. App. 658 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 1985

When he finally *663 saw 10-month-old David on August 13, 1984, his height and weight were below the 5th percentile and he had received none of the appropriate immunizations normally administered to children. … The probate court cannot consider termination of parental rights without first properly establishing jurisdiction. In the Matter of Taurus F, 415 Mich 512, 526 ; 330 NW2d 33 (1982).

Patricia Reid Porter v. City of Highland Park

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2015

-6-  Plaintiffs next contend that defendants were not entitled to summary disposition on their federal law claim under 42 USC 1983 and that the individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity in relation … Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is reviewed de novo. Morden v Grand Traverse Co, 275 Mich App 325, 340; 738 NW2d 278 (2007).

State Highway Commissioner v. Green

5 Mich. App. 583 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1967

Nor will this Court interfere with such an award that is clearly within the range of the evidence offered. … In In re State Highway Commissioner’s Petition (1944), 310 Mich 93 , 99, the Court qualifies the strict application of the before-after test by saying that “We do not hold that it is universally improper to take testimony