Case law

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.

Geaniece D Carter v. Warren Consolidated School District

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2017

Because Bernia and Tremmel are public school principals they would be classified as “lower-ranking governmental employee[s] or official[s],” and they have qualified immunity from 3 Notably, none of the exceptions to … Thus, it is clear from the record that both Bernia and Tremmel have qualified immunity from plaintiff’s intentional tort claim.

Henry v. City of Detroit

234 Mich. App. 405 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1999

In the case at bar, by giving a deposition in a civil case, plaintiff clearly participated in a “court action.” The more difficult question is whether plaintiff was requested by a “public body” to do so. … MCR 1.103 specifically states that “[t]he Michigan Court Rules govern practice and procedures in all courts established by the constitution and laws of the State of Michigan.”

Geaniece D Carter v. Warren Consolidated School District

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2017

Because Bernia and Tremmel are public school principals they would be classified as “lower-ranking governmental employee[s] or official[s],” and they have qualified immunity from 3 Notably, none of the exceptions to … Thus, it is clear from the record that both Bernia and Tremmel have qualified immunity from plaintiff’s intentional tort claim.

People v. Manning

243 Mich. App. 615 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2001

For this reason, such jurisdictions will be immune from systemic challenges. … Therefore, we reverse and remand to the trial court to make appropriate findings under the factors established in Cipriano.

Grand Rapids Education Ass'n v. Grand Rapids Board of Education

170 Mich. App. 644 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 1988

A district employing teachers not legally qualified shall have deducted the sum equal to Vi the amount paid the teachers. … A district failing to comply with rules promulgated by the state board, which rules establish the minimum time pupil instruction is to be provided to pupils for the regular school year, shall forfeit from its total state

People v. White

294 Mich. App. 622 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 2011

The information qualifies as an incriminating statement and the statement qualifies as the functional equivalent of expressed questioning, because it occurred after the defendant invoked his right to remain silent. … Raper, 222 Mich App at 481 (clearly erroneous standard applied by this Court in reviewing factual findings that express questioning did not occur).

Haisenleder v. Reeder

114 Mich. App. 258 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 1982

A witness may be qualified as an expert "by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education”. MRE 702. Siirila v Barrios, 398 Mich 576, 591 ; 248 NW2d 171 (1976). … We note, however, that counsel should clearly elicit that the expert knows the standard and what the standard was before questioning as to what that standard would have required.

People v. Young

220 Mich. App. 420 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1997

Since that time, defendant has established a significant amount of criminal convictions resulting in lengthy periods of incarcerations. … Giving such unfettered immunity to the Department of Corrections would not only jeopardize public safety, but seems to do nothing for parolees such as Young who are clearly not rehabilitated by their incarceration.

Ben McKenzie Jr v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2014

The trial court found that plaintiff’s claim was barred by governmental immunity because plaintiff could not establish that Motley’s conduct amounted to gross negligence that was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. … “This Court reviews the findings of fact by a trial court sitting without a jury under the clearly erroneous standard.” Walters v Snyder, 239 Mich App 453, 456; 608 NW2d 97 (2000).

In Re Oakland Prosecutor

191 Mich. App. 113 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 1991

Judge Schnelz concluded that defendant had received ineffective assistance of counsel: The foregoing testimony clearly established that, although the prosecutor never actually promised to refrain from making a sentence recommendation … The testimony also established that Defendant relied on that belief in entering his pleas of guilty.

Dana v. American Youth Foundation

257 Mich. App. 208 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2003

She also qualified for health insurance and a child-care allowance during her service. … Employees who become involuntarily unemployed may qualify for unemployment compensation under MESA.

Leibel v. General Motors Corp.

250 Mich. App. 229 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2002

Clearly, the Toth Memo represents precisely the kind of legal advice in-house counsel routinely provides to a corporate client. … They are, however, if obtained in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial, work product and, therefore, cloaked with a qualified immunity without regard to whether they are prepared by an attorney or by some other

B D Christenson v. Secretary of State

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 2021

The Court of Claims noted that, “MCL 168.558(2), which outlines the requirements for an affidavit of identity, i.e., the document establishing eligibility for office, expressly uses the term ‘residential address.’ ” … In relation to a request for mandamus, 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

Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co.

154 Mich. App. 142 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 1986

Here, the trial court determined that plaintiffs’ expert witness was qualified as an expert witness in the area of sexual harassment. Dr. … Clearly, if there is no intentional tort exception, plaintiffs’ claim in the present case would be barred by the exclusive remedy provision.

Groveland Township v. Jennings

106 Mich. App. 504 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 20, 1981

Stablex thus qualifies as an acceptable fill material for reclamation as set forth in the Consent Judgment and Ordinance 31. … In our judgment, the evidence in the record clearly supports the latter conclusion that the reclamation of the land is merely incidental to the primary purpose of hazardous waste disposal.

People v. Perry

216 Mich. App. 277 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1996

The determination regarding the existence, or nonexistence, of a particular reason or. factor is reviewed on appeal under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. at 77 . … Once the existence of a factor has been established, the court must determine whether the factor is objective and verifiable, and that finding of the trial court is reviewed de novo. Id. at 78 .

Stacy Hubbard v. Lisa Stier Np

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 2023

Each of these pre-suit notice requirements establishes a deadline by which notice must be given. … What the amended language clearly does not cover are pre-suit notice requirements, which establish deadlines by which notice must be given.

In Re Roe

281 Mich. App. 88 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2008

Snyder, the qualified Indian expert, admitted that no efforts had been made to maintain Ashtyn in respondent's home. … and convincingly" qualify as "futile."

Simmons v. Telcom Credit Union

177 Mich. App. 636 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1989

However, the deposition testimony relied on by defendant failed to establish what information the prosecutor actually relied on in deciding whether to seek an arrest warrant and the detective who was deposed could not recall … not make him liable under the rule stated in this Section merely because he intentionally refrains from informing a public prosecutor, into whose control the prosecution has passed, of subsequently discovered facts that clearly