Case law

Tranker v. Figgie International, Inc

221 Mich. App. 7 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 1997

It also held that the employment policy relied upon by plaintiff for purposes of his argument that defendant breached the parties’ employment contract did not establish an employment contract terminable for just cause only … Court of Appeals agreed with the district court’s application of judicial estoppel and concluded that the plaintiff’s representation to the *17 Social Security Administration that he was totally and permanently disabled was clearly

People v. Aldrich

246 Mich. App. 101 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2001

The evidence indicated that defendant clearly played a part in the accident despite the fact that his vehicle did not strike or come into contact with another vehicle. … The instructions must not be “ ‘extracted piecemeal to establish error.’ ” Id., quoting People v Caulley, 197 Mich App 177, 184 ; 494 NW2d 853 (1992).

Moore v. Department of Military Affairs

60 Mich. App. 338 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 1975

It invites our interpretation of certain sections of two acts, both of which pertain to matters relating to Michigan’s military establishment. … Moore, having been found qualified for retirement benefits, be retired pursuant to the provisions of § 49 and 49c, P.L. 84, 1909, as amended, and § 435, PA 150, 1967, State of Michigan, beginning 11 July 1972.” 1 The Governor

Mapleview Estates, Inc v. City of Brown City

258 Mich. App. 412 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2003

authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified or from increasing the rate of an existing tax above that rate authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified, without the approval of a majority of the qualified … the relation of the connection to the charge paid by the owner of each parcel of land, since we *418 presume ‘that the amount of the fee is reasonable, unless the contrary appears upon the face of the law itself, or is established

Ellen White v. Department of Transportation

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 2020

Federal courts applying Burlington require allegations and evidence that PIPs and negative performance evaluations have materially adverse consequences in order to qualify as an adverse employment action. … Additionally, many of the cited cases clearly and concisely state the law under Burlington and additional exegesis was not required.

Belvidere Township v. Heinze

241 Mich. App. 324 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2000

Further, *330 thé improvements are equally useful for a lawful, conforming use, such as the operation of a hog farm that does not qualify as a concentrated livestock operation. … Clearly, the construction undertaken in Gackler was more substantial than that in the present case. Accordingly, we find that defendant failed to establish a legally cognizable preexisting nonconforming use. *331 m.

Consumers Power Co. v. Public Service Commission

196 Mich. App. 436 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1992

It would clearly be a waste of resources to allow Consumers to force the relitigation of issues already settled. … Each qualifying facility shall have the option either: (1) To provide energy as the qualifying facility determines such energy to be available for such purchases, in which case the rates for such purchases shall be based

Antonio Fleming v. Waterford Charter Township

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2023

A review of the photos submitted by the parties clearly establishes that the manhole in which plaintiff fell is not part of “a paved public sidewalk intended for pedestrian use” as required by MCL 691.1402a(1) and as defined … The manhole cover is to the right of the two tires on the paved roadway and clearly is not on or a part of the paved roadway.

People of Michigan v. Nichole Tasha Howes

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2019

To be protected by immunity under § 4, a primary caregiver can only possess and provide marijuana in relation to “each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process.” … The testimony was relevant with respect to whether defendant was entitled to immunity under § 4: it effectively established that she was not entitled to immunity, which was apparently the gist of the trial court’s ruling.4

Shotwell v. Department of Treasury

305 Mich. App. 360 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 27, 2014

However, unless a contrary intent is clearly manifested, statutes are presumed to operate prospectively. Id. … The department has the burden to first produce prima facie evidence as described in subsection (15) or establish a prima facie case that the person is the responsible person under this subsection through establishment of

People v. Cress

250 Mich. App. 110 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 31, 2002

could rule out that strangulation occurred. 17 *135 Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court clearly erred to the extent that it relied on the expert medical testimony to establish that Ronning falsely confessed to … In this case, the prosecutor’s destruction of evidence clearly qualifies as a “cause for which by law a new trial may be granted . . . .” MCL 770.1.

People v. Beam

244 Mich. App. 103 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2001

Defendant contends that the statute is vague because it does not address whether an absentee owner, particularly one who is incarcerated, qualifies as an “owner” under the statute. … The statute is clearly aimed at the persons who profit from staging fights between animals and who should be aware of the dangers posed by such animals, i.e., their owners.

People v. Gonzales

108 Mich. App. 145 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 1981

Such a belief can be unshakeable, last a lifetime, and be immune to all cross-examination. It is especially prone to 'freeze’ if it is compatible with the subject’s prior prejudices, beliefs, or desires. … Thus, he fails to qualify as a disinterested and impartial expert or scientist. Moreover, even Rossi did not call forensic hypnosis a science.

Elezovic v. Ford Motor Co.

274 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2007

The Supreme Court specifically declined to engage in the next step in the analysis and consider whether Bennett, as plaintiffs supervisor, qualified as an agent if, in harassing plaintiff, he acted beyond the scope of his … This effectively ignores both the prior caselaw determining the requirements for establishing liability under an agency relationship and, impliedly, alters the elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of hostile

Zaremba Equipment, Inc. v. Harco National Insurance

302 Mich. App. 7 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2013

Nor did the objections, speeches, comments, and arguments qualify as inflammatory, extreme, or deliberately misleading. … Second, this Court instructed that, with regard to the relevant policy provisions, the policy limits were clearly stated without ambiguity.

Jacob Stewart v. Audrey Szymborski

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2025

The trial court’s order clearly, however, refers to the affidavits. … Next, Macomb ISD argues that it was entitled to governmental immunity because plaintiffs could not establish the bodily injury requirement of MCL 691.1405.

Niki S Nelson v. John Carl Wittkowski

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2024

There was simply no evidence by a qualified expert to offer an opinion that linked the car accident to plaintiff’s knee injuries. … Therefore, in order to avoid governmental immunity in a claim for noneconomic damages, plaintiff had to establish both the applicability of an exception to governmental immunity and comply with the requirements of MCL 500.3135

People v. Grabowski

12 Mich. App. 672 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 1968

The court clerk and a police officer testified that the door from the clerk’s office to the courtroom had clearly been broken and that the wood was splintered. … State (1929), 155 Miss 629, 638 (125 So 115, 117), in which the Court adopted this rule, saying: “A litigant has not a vested right in a particular juror, but only a right to be tried by a fair and impartial jury qualified

People v. Uphaus

275 Mich. App. 158 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2007

Unlike the sentencing scheme at issue in Blakely , MCL 769.34(4)(a) does not necessarily establish a new maximum. … As will be discussed below, we conclude that MCL 769.34(4)(a) establishes a new maximum sentence when it applies.

Dow Chemical Co. v. Curtis

158 Mich. App. 347 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 1987

States which is functionally integrated with such establishment and is operated by the same employing unit. … We disagree. *357 The general rule in Michigan is that statutes are prospective in their operation except where the contrary clearly appears from the context of the statute itself.