Case law

P Kevin Ong v. Cheryl Lewis

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2023

And this is a pure credibility contest between plaintiff’s highly qualified and unchallenged expert and defendants’ experts. … The majority mistakenly holds Ong to a higher standard by requiring him to establish that Lewis’s conduct constitutes “the” proximate cause of his injuries.

People v. Gingrich

307 Mich. App. 656 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2014

“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, an appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” … A “[t]resspass alone does not qualify, but there must be conjoined with that . . . an attempt to find something or to obtain information.” Jones, 565 US at __ n 5; 133 S Ct at 951.

Jones v. Botsford Continuing Care Corporation

310 Mich. App. 192 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2015

Selznick clearly states in his brief on appeal, as he does on his web page, that he is board certified in family medicine “with an added qualification in geriatrics.” Likewise, Dr. … Compton was not qualified to testify to the standard of care at trial against Dr. Selznick. See id. at 565.

Ratliff v. General Motors Corp.

127 Mich. App. 410 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 1983

This is a factual finding based upon evidentiary and established facts. … The governor, with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint the members for terms of 4 years, and until their successors are appointed and qualified.

Vickers v. Employment Security Commission

30 Mich. App. 530 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 1971

Section 27(c) contains the formula for the computation and payment of benefits to an individual who is otherwise qualified to receive unemployment compensation. … It clearly and necessarily spells out and defines when an individual shall be deemed unemployed.

People v. Greenfield

722 N.W.2d 254 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 2006

codefendant, or accomplice, even if that person is not a prospective witness at trial; (4) any affidavit, warrant, and return pertaining to a search or seizure in connection with the case; and (5) any plea agreement, grant of immunity … Clearly, defendant benefited from the exclusion of the incriminating test results because they definitively established that his blood alcohol content exceeded the level permitted under the OUIL statute.

Berryman v. K Mart Corp.

193 Mich. App. 88 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1992

Berryman, there was sufficient evidence to establish that Mrs. … The trial court’s conclusions that Pachella "never had a situation” similar to the one in this matter and that he had never been admitted as an expert by another court were clearly erroneous.

Boone v. Antrim County Board of Road Commissioners

177 Mich. App. 688 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1989

dedication under authority of MCL 560.183; MSA 26.430(183), since such requirement would conflict rather than harmonize with the overall statutory scheme setting forth a specific exception for which plaintiffs would have qualified … Accordingly, the trial court’s holding was not clearly erroneous.

Adkins v. Department of Civil Service

140 Mich. App. 202 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 1985

Clearly, the issue of vagueness was part and parcel of petitioners’ claim that they were improperly classified. … The guidelines also fail to qualify "most complex” in relation to "complex”, as was noted by the circuit court.

People v. Wess

235 Mich. App. 241 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 1999

Given modem procedural safeguards for criminal defendants, the “right” only preserves the possibility that harm will come to the arresting officer or the defendant. 2 Like the court in Treece , we would qualify our decision … We are not deciding the question whether one may intervene where a police officer is using clearly excessive force. 3 “[A] third person does not have the right to intervene, and assist the person the officer is endeavoring

People v. Geno

683 N.W.2d 687 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2004

The victim cannot testify because of her age; she does not qualify as a witness under MRE 601. … These underlying factors are clearly objective and verifiable and are substantial and compelling reasons to support his upward departure.

Trombetta v. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad

81 Mich. App. 489 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 1978

Such action would clearly violate the law of this state. MCLA 323.10; MSA 3.529(1). … Plaintiff’s failure to submit any proof which would qualify as admissible evidence at trial to contradict the sworn statements made by defendants’ agents contributed to the trial court’s findings.

Ardt v. Titan Insurance

233 Mich. App. 685 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 1999

Where the moving party has produced evidence in support of the motion, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to establish that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists. … Had the Legislature intended the exclusionary effect of MCL 500.3113(b); MSA 24.13113(b) to apply to only a single primary owner for each vehicle, it would have had to indicate that intention more clearly than by use of the

Department of Environmental Quality v. Hernan F Gomez

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2016

After hearing testimony from Smith and Kolhoff, both of whom were qualified as expert witnesses, Martin, who also was qualified as an expert witness, and defendant Hernan, the trial court ordered defendants to, inter alia … Thus, the court’s finding on this matter was not clearly erroneous. See King, 303 Mich App at 185.

Mitchell v. Cole

196 Mich. App. 675 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 1992

The burden of establishing the circumstances under which an enhancement is appropriate is on the fee applicant. Blum, supra at 898 . … The order clearly shows that the trial court focused on more than "the risky nature of this specific case." In fact, the court's emphasis was more on the fact that this was a contingent fee case.

Debra K Andreson v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company

322 Mich. App. 76 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2017

-7- and defendant has failed to otherwise establish that it was more probable than not that the alleged error was outcome determinative. … Therefore, the admissibility of the UIM policy limits clearly did not impact the settlement value of the case for purposes of the offers and counteroffers of judgment.

Ewald v. Ewald

292 Mich. App. 706 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 26, 2011

case when any of the following situations occur: (1) The child has special needs. (2) The child has extraordinary educational expenses. (3) A parent is a minor. (4) The child’s residence income is below the threshold to qualify … Defendant has not established clearly erroneous factual findings or presented a convincing argument that the trial court’s dispositional ruling was inequitable. IV ATTORNEY FEES A.

Heindlmeyer v. Ottawa County Concealed Weapons Licensing Board

268 Mich. App. 202 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2005

Such boards are established in each county. MCL 28.425a. … Further, we hold that the well-established and well-accepted definition of “clearly erroneous,” indisputably a legal term of art that has developed over the years through opinions *223 by this Court and our Supreme Court,

Stevenson v. Detroit

42 Mich. App. 294 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 1972

Where such facts coalesce, we think that the petitioner qualifies as a 'wife’ under the statute. … Under established precedent, it was not. The issue is whether Ila was, nevertheless, his widow within the meaning of the mentioned provision of Detroit’s charter.

Louis Jackson v. Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2023

As to the civil-conspiracy claim under 42 USC 1983, the city defendants argued Zorn and Siver were entitled to qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs contended Zorn and Siver were not entitled to summary disposition on the basis of qualified immunity because they violated a clearly established constitutional right.