Case law

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.

Kelly Services, Inc. v. Department of Treasury

296 Mich. App. 306 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2012

As such, royalty income does not appear to have arisen out of a qualifying transaction. … Moreover, the legislative bill analysis clearly indicates the clarifying nature of the amendment of the definition of sales in the SBTA.

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.

Renshaw v. Samuels

117 Mich. App. 649 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 1982

MCL 570.4; MSA 26.284 establishes a procedure which protects both the owner and the subcontractor. … The trial court’s finding that the record was void of evidence of the amount of setoff is clearly erroneous.

Austin Laskos v. Jeffery Mark Maples

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 25, 2023

The foregoing evidence clearly establishes a question of fact with respect to whether Maples was negligent in the operation of the SUV. … Causation cannot be established by mere speculation. Patrick, 322 Mich App at 617.

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.

Malpass v. Department of Treasury

295 Mich. App. 263 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2011

In 1999, plaintiffs established Ardmore Foundry, Inc. Ardmore is a Michigan corporation with its resident agent located at 301 Spring Street, East Jordan. … Glieberman, however, is distinguishable because it involved a qualified subchapter S subsidiary.

Univ. Med. Affil., Pc v. Wayne Cty. Exec.

142 Mich. App. 135 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1985

As noted by the trial court, the county still accepts financial responsibility for qualified indigent county residents under the plan. The requirements of § 3.117 are therefore satisfied. … cannot establish the second prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

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.

Nelson v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange

137 Mich. App. 226 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1984

Posada was a "very well qualified physician” who had terminated treatment. Defendant presented no evidence from Dr. Posada or from any other medical expert witness to establish that Dr. … We cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in awarding plaintiff attorney fees in the instant case. In fact, several factors persuade us that the award is justifiable.

Vansach v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (In re Estate of Vansach)

324 Mich. App. 371 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 22, 2018

The community spouse's income is thus preserved for that spouse and does not affect the determination whether the institutionalized spouse qualifies for Medicaid. … "A finding is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, even if there is evidence to support the finding."

People of Michigan v. Madison Danielle Perry

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2021

[emphasis added] Clearly, then, when a person is under the influence of marijuana or is consuming marijuana while operating a vehicle, the person is not afforded the same limitation on punishment as one who is under … Therefore, we discern no intent within the MMMA to immunize the visibly impaired driver from prosecution.

Dupree v. Malpractice Research, Inc

179 Mich. App. 254 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 1989

Apparently unable to locate necessary and qualified experts locally to evaluate and provide expert testimony to support his clients’ medical malpractice suit for injuries suffered by Leslie Dupree during birth, plaintiffs … This section clearly enunciates the public policy that doctor’s fees should not be based on an uncertain outcome of a contingency, the underlying public policy being the danger of the physician becoming more of an advocate

Gary Porhola v. Devin Charles Johnson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2023

governmental immunity applies to his or her claim.” … At issue is whether the backhoe qualifies as a motor vehicle for purposes of MCL 691.1405.

North Michigan Land & Oil Corp. v. Public Service Commission

211 Mich. App. 424 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1995

They claim that it exceeded its authority under the statute by "unilaterally” establishing a lower contract price in this case. … It is for the psc to weigh conflicting opinion testimony of the qualified ("competent”) experts to determine how the evidence preponderated.

Northland Wheels Roller Skating Center, Inc v. Detroit Free Press, Inc

213 Mich. App. 317 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 1995

MCR 2.116(C)(8) permits a court to grant summary disposition for a defendant where the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, i.e., where *323 the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter … The existence of a privilege that immunizes a defendant from liability for libel is a question of law that this Court determines de novo.

Morgan v. Taylor School District

187 Mich. App. 5 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 1991

In August 1986, defendant hired at least two full-time teachers who lacked preferential hiring rights for positions for which plaintiff was qualified and certified. … However, it is proper to seek legislative intent where such intent is clearly implied by the language of an amendment or by the circumstances surrounding its enactment.

Norwood v. Connecticut General Life Insurance

2 Mich. App. 535 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1966

Under the insurance contract, termination of Norwood’s employment was determined by Gar Wood, and its records clearly established November 22d as the termination date. … The telegraphic notice plaintiff relies on is not part of termination under section 8, but is rather notice to qualify for re-employment under section 5 of article 13.

Grant Chen and Caroline Chen LLC v. Ryan Sweeney

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 6, 2021

In order to establish a claim of defamation, a plaintiff must show: (1) a false or defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) fault amounting to at least … Looking to the parties’ arguments on appeal, the issue in this case focuses exclusively on element two—whether defendants’ statements in the motions to compel qualified as “unprivileged publication to a third party.”

Florence Cement Co. v. Vettraino

292 Mich. App. 461 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 3, 2011

In establishing the subject project, Shelby obtained a cost estimate for the development, and, on the basis of the cost estimate, Shelby determined that it would need to borrow money in order to finance the project. … Accordingly, we conclude that reversal is warranted because the trial court clearly erred by concluding otherwise. IV DISTRIBUTIONS A.