Case law

James Sottile v. County of Monroe

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2018

Thus, “[t]o qualify for absolute immunity from tort liability an individual governmental employee must prove his or her entitlement to immunity by establishing . . . (1) that he or she is a judge, legislator, or the elective … Further, in Rose v Saginaw Co, 353 F Supp 2d 900, 924-925 (ED Mich, 2005), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that the sheriff of Saginaw County qualified for absolute immunity under

Rehabilitation Center, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield

93 Mich. App. 357 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1979

In order for a nursing home to qualify for participation in the program, it must be accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. … Under the new contract, Blue Cross was to reimburse participating providers according to its reimbursement policies as established from time to time by its Board of Directors.

Bivens v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital

77 Mich. App. 478 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 1977

Clearly, under Frazier and Ferguson , his testimony is not impermissible so long as his testimony establishes that he was familiar with osteopathic thoracic surgery procedures and standards. … The court’s allowance of the text material as "impeachment evidence” was clearly proper under Jones .

Huron Behavioral Health v. Department of Community Health

293 Mich. App. 491 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 2011

(e) Arbitrary, capricious or clearly an abuse or unwarranted exercise of discretion. … Respondent argues that the clause set off by commas severs the beginning of the sentence from the “for cause” qualifier that follows.

Adamo Demolition Co. v. Department of Treasury

303 Mich. App. 356 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2013

ADAMO’S STATUS AS ADAMO DEMOLITION’S OWNER The Department asserts that the service providers did not qualify as professional employer organizations under MCL 208.4(4)(a) or (d), and, therefore, the employees’ compensation … APPLYING THE STANDARDS The Department contends that the Tribunal erred by finding that it was attempting to purposefully avoid the application of clearly established precedent.

Bitterman v. Village of Oakley

309 Mich. App. 53 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2015

Again, the Village has the burden of establishing the exemption. MCL 15.240(4). … As stated in the accompanying opinion, we remand as to whether the police reservist qualify as law enforcement officers or agents within the meaning of MCL 15.243(1)(s)(viii).

James Sottile v. County of Monroe

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2018

Thus, “[t]o qualify for absolute immunity from tort liability an individual governmental employee must prove his or her entitlement to immunity by establishing . . . (1) that he or she is a judge, legislator, or the elective … Further, in Rose v Saginaw Co, 353 F Supp 2d 900, 924-925 (ED Mich, 2005), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that the sheriff of Saginaw County qualified for absolute immunity under

Estate of Ali Sufi v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2015

distinguishing a governmental immunity defense from the holding of Grove, supra). … “Statutes are presumed to apply prospectively unless the Legislature clearly manifests the intent for retroactive application.” Johnson v Pastoriza, 491 Mich 417, 429; 818 NW2d 279 (2012) (citation omitted).

People v. Derrick Smith

87 Mich. App. 584 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1978

Medical testimony established that the deceased had suffered deep injuries to the head and face which were caused by the impact of a blunt object, possibly a hammer. … We find one which clearly requires reversal. Four other issues constitute error and require comment, while the remainder are without merit.

Glenn Bowles v. Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2023

(4) If the plaintiff pleaded an intentional tort, determine whether the defendant established that he is entitled to individual governmental immunity under the Ross[1] test by showing the following … On these facts, the Attorney General clearly is “immune from tort liability” because he was “acting within the scope of [his] executive authority.” [Id. at 144.]

Monroe Beverage Co. v. Stroh Brewery Co.

211 Mich. App. 286 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1995

Clearly, this portion of the statute confers standing upon any wholesaler which has entered into a distribution agreement with a supplier. … The statute mandates that the supplier act promptly and give consent to qualified transferees. Granting standing to Monroe promotes the stated purposes of § 30b.

Shields v. Department of Corrections

128 Mich. App. 380 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1983

The Court concluded: "The Nebraska procedure affords an opportunity to be heard, and when parole is denied it informs the inmate in what respects he falls short of qualifying for parole; this affords the process that is due … Plaintiff also contends that the procedure violates state due process requirements established in MCL 791.251 et seq.; MSA 28.2320(51) et seq. This argument likewise is without merit.

People v. Aspy

292 Mich. App. 36 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2011

We conclude that the facts offered by the prosecution and proved to the jury were clearly adequate to confer jurisdiction. … Rather, defendant sought to establish only that the “alleged child” was over the age of 18. Accordingly, defendant did not seek to establish the affirmative defense afforded by the Legislature under MCL 750.145c(6).

Ammex, Inc v. Department of Treasury

272 Mich. App. 486 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2007

However, Reynolds objected to North Carolina’s imposition of property taxes on the imported tobacco stored in bonded warehouses, arguing that it was immune from state taxation based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Xerox. … appeal that plaintiff was not a proper party to seek a motor fuel tax refund under MCL 207.112(2) because only a “purchaser” is eligible to receive a refund under MCL 207.112(2), and that plaintiff, as a retailer, did not qualify

Randy Atto v. Stephen Wandrie

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2022

“Section 4 grants broad immunity from criminal prosecution and civil penalties to ‘qualifying patients’ and ‘primary caregivers’ if certain conditions are met.” Id. at 71-72. … “Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of the MMMA contain parallel immunity provisions that apply to qualifying patients and registered caregivers, respectively.” Id. at 76.

West Mi Annual Conf of the United Methodist Church v. Grand Rapids

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2021

Crawford was not required to minister to a specific congregation for the residence to qualify as a parsonage. … Thus, “the minister” can refer to multiple clergy when the facts establish that there are multiple clergy living in multiple residences owned by a religious society.

Borgess Medical Center v. Resto

273 Mich. App. 558 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2007

The trial court did not clearly err by awarding plaintiff attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1). *581 Finally, defendant has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of attorney … We further hold that the trial court did not clearly err in awarding plaintiff penalty interest under MCL 500.3142, nor did the trial court either clearly err or abuse its discretion by awarding plaintiff attorney fees under

In Re a J Gilmore Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 2026

Therefore, the trial court clearly erred and further proceedings are required. … But the trial court clearly erred in not expressly considering the child’s placement with her mother as weighing against termination.

Camden v. Kaufman

240 Mich. App. 389 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2000

However, plaintiff failed to present any foundation to accompany defendant Zalenko’s testimony to indicate that he was qualified to assess the value of the shares. … The conclusion that a conflict of interest exists is a question of fact and is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. People v Doyle, 159 Mich App 632, 640-641 ; 406 NW2d 893 (1987).

People v. Coones

216 Mich. App. 721 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 1996

A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration-even a stem and short-tempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration-remain immune. [ 127 L Ed 2d 490 -491 (emphasis in the original).] … Clearly defendant’s new counsel at sentencing was insufficiently prepared to advocate on defendant’s behalf and to advise and counsel defendant on his allocution opportunity.