Case law

Craig Hecht v. National Heritage Academies Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2014

Though defendant maintains that the disclosures should not have been admitted into evidence because subsection (3) provides for immunity from civil liability, such immunity applies only “for the disclosure” itself. … The respondent must do so by establishing “(1) that the damage suffered by plaintiff could have been avoided, i.e., that there were suitable positions available which plaintiff could have discovered and for which he was qualified

Empire Iron Mining Partnership v. Asmund

211 Mich. App. 118 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 23, 1995

However, if a literal construction of a statute would produce absurd and unjust results clearly inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the statute, a court may depart from a literal construction. … Reduced to its simplest form, claimants’ position is that the Legislature, in establishing the two-pronged test as part of § 29(8), intended to adopt a definition of "bona fide” interim employment that does not include "bona

People v. Shepherd

263 Mich. App. 665 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2004

When quantitatively assessed in this case, there is clearly more than a reasonable probability that the transcript of Mr. … Regardless of the precise *675 articulation, some statements qualify under any definition —for example, ex parte testimony at a preliminary hearing. [2 8] In the only two cases where our Court has addressed Crawford, the

Bishop v. Interlake, Inc

121 Mich. App. 397 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 1982

If the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a prima facie case, the motion must be denied. Bouwman v Chrysler Corp, 114 Mich App 670 ; 319 NW2d 621 (1982). … Kunka’s testimony about industry standards, competitors’ products, why there were no warnings to use the guard on the machine and the like, was based on his specialized knowledge and qualified as expert testimony under MRE

Ali a El-Khalil v. Oakwood Health Care Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2018

immunity. … Immunity Statute.

Ali a El-Khalil v. Oakwood Health Care Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2018

immunity. … Immunity Statute.

Michigan Transportation Co. v. Secretary of State

41 Mich. App. 654 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 1972

Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of the community.’ … Most Federal labor relations statutes clearly state that the regulations are designed to eliminate from the channels of commerce those obstructions arising from labor disputes.

Estate of John Edward Rogers v. McLaren MacOmb

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 2025

The alleged acts, omissions, and injuries were wholly unrelated to the pandemic, so deeming defendant immune would contravene the Legislature’s clearly- communicated intent to limit this immunization to services … However, the plaintiff must establish beyond that the actor simply “could have done more,” for “a claim can always be made that extra precautions could have influenced the result.” Id.

Attorney General v. Lake States Wood Preserving, Inc

199 Mich. App. 149 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 1993

Rule 705 3 establishes the general characteristics of remedial action needed at a contaminated site. … Moreover, there was no evidence establishing that the contemplated remediation could remove the pcp from the acquifer.

Dairyland Insurance v. Auto-Owners Insurance

123 Mich. App. 675 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 1983

Specifically, it has been held that estranged spouses and children living with estranged spouses qualify for protection even though living apart from the named insured. … We should not reverse where, as here, the evidence does not clearly preponderate in the opposite direction. Brady v Central Excavators, Inc, 316 Mich 594 ; 25 NW2d 630 (1947).

Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Department of Environmental Quality

253 Mich. App. 263 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2002

Defendants allege that plaintiff has failed to establish the former and is time-barred from asserting the latter. … Interestingly, on appeal, the deq argues that TechniSand qualifies for the exception allowing it to mine in the critical dime area under MCL 324.63702(1)(a), while TechniSand argues that it qualifies under MCL 324.63702(1

Davis v. Department of Treasury

160 Mich. App. 98 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 5, 1987

In this case, plaintiffs status as a retired federal employee is clearly not one who works for hire. … Indeed, we believe that had Congress so intended it would have clearly so provided.

Chamar Avery v. State of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 2023

It waives sovereign immunity and allows a person who was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned to seek compensation by bringing an action against the state in the Court of Claims. … Plaintiff, therefore, has failed to establish any right to relief. B.

Holloway v. General Motors Corp.

60 Mich. App. 208 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 1975

A new test was announced clearly incompatible with Pierceñeld, supra. We quote: "In the instant case, there was no competent direct proof of what specific irritant, if any, was present in the slip cloth. … No one qualified to say so testimonially claimed it was too weak, too long, too short, or too anything. Neither did anyone say it was not designed correctly, the metal too light or that it was not too anything.

Nicholas Diedo v. City of Inkster

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2014

“[N]on-tort causes of action are not barred by immunity if a plaintiff successfully pleads and establishes such a cause of action.” … Plaintiff’s action in this case is clearly premised in contract law. Plaintiff alleges that Inkster has a duty to indemnify Twardzik “by the terms of its municipal insurance policy and other agreements[.]”

Gainey v. Sieloff

154 Mich. App. 694 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1986

Notwithstanding plaintiffs’ reference to excessive force, we are persuaded that plaintiffs’ purpose was to establish municipal liability. Thus, the evidence was not offered for a prohibited purpose. MRE 404 and 608. … IV Defendants next argue that summary judgment should have been granted on the negligence count based on the doctrine of governmental immunity.

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Farm Bureau General Insurance

272 Mich. App. 106 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2006

The exception at issue here, MCL 500.3114(5), establishes the priority in which a motorcycle rider accidentally injured by a motor vehicle must claim no-fault benefits. … Again, to interpret the statute as defendant suggests is contrary to the plain language of the subsection and renders meaningless the qualifying phrase, “the owner or registrant of.”

Anthony Robinson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2024

Whether the GTLA applies requires establishing the defendant is (1) a governmental agency that is (2) engaged in a governmental function. Id. … A finding of negligence requires establishment of the following elements: “(1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, and (4) damages.”

People v. DeWitt

173 Mich. App. 261 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 1988

The statute clearly states that neither spouse may be "examined as a witness” against the other spouse, implying that either spouse must testify. Therefore, the privilege does not apply. … In this case, even if we assume that Roxanne’s statements qualify as an expression of her state of mind, her state of mind was simply not at issue in the case.

Gazette v. City of Pontiac

212 Mich. App. 162 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 1995

Defendant Pontiac Police Department is clearly a public service under the hcra. … Because of our resolution of these issues, we do not address defendants’ claim that they were entitled to a grant of summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity.