Case law

Brent Adams v. Traverse City Light and Power

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2020

“[G]overnmental immunity is not an affirmative defense, but is instead a characteristic of government,” and parties “seeking to impose liability on a governmental agency” have the burden of establishing the applicability … In this sense, the instant matter differs greatly from Coleman, which plaintiffs rely heavily upon, because in that case the evidence clearly established that the landfill operation at issue was a significant funding source

County of Oakland v. State of Michigan

325 Mich. App. 247 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2018

The MIDC had no authority over who becomes a licensed attorney; the act merely addressed a county-controlled system to ascertain indigency and provide qualified attorneys to indigent defendants. … “Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and we have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.”

People v. Ackerman

257 Mich. App. 434 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2003

Niffeler was clearly qualified in a recognized discipline; consequently, the only remaining question is whether his testimony would be helpful to the jury. “ ‘The critical inquiry with regard to expert testimony is whether … Accordingly, defendant has not established the factual predicate for his claim. People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 6 ; 594 NW2d 57 (1999).

MacOmb County Prosecutor v. MacOmb County Executive

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2024

“A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may only be granted when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” … Under both the first and second sentences, Corporation Counsel clearly is available to offer general legal advice to plaintiff.

People v. Smith

243 Mich. App. 657 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2001

A trial court has discretion to determine whether evidence is admissible, and its decision should be reversed only when the trial court clearly abused its discretion. … Barnett [defense counsel] admits, it would appear that the rule was employed properly but for the objection which is that it essentially will eliminate the spousal immunity rule.

Leonard Gust v. Lenawee County Road Commission

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2017

Plaintiffs argued that: (1) they established a taking as a matter of law during trial, and (2) they are entitled to relief from the order dismissing their claims against Gregg, as he was not entitled to governmental immunity … Pursuant to MCL 691.1407(5), in order [t]o qualify for absolute immunity from tort liability an individual governmental employee must prove his or her entitlement to immunity by establishing, consistently

Vidyaarthy C Ramamoorthi v. Chinnaiah Ramamoorthi

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 2018

A finding is clearly erroneous if, on all the evidence, the Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. [Quotation marks and citations omitted.] … Germane to the instant case, “an established domicile is not destroyed by a temporary absence if the person has no intention of changing his or her domicile.” Id.

Estate of Zuhair Khosho v. Ascension MacOmb Oakland Hospital

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2025

The pseudomonas bacteria is resistant to certain antibiotics and an infection can be potentially deadly for those with a weakened immune system. … Khosho’s immune system shut down past “the point of no return” before that date. Dr. Smith sought summary disposition or, alternately, a Daubert hearing.

Lockwood v. Continental Motors Corp.

27 Mich. App. 597 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 1970

That he, perhaps less fortunately than Paulson, is subjected to the disabling phenomenon by causes other than the use of his legs is hardly a good reason for depriving him of compensation which clearly would be payable if … We also note that a worker could lose his hearing and still have the industrial use of his arms and legs; it is, therefore, not true that “any other infirmity” would qualify for total and permanent disability. *606 During

Kevin Modin v. West Branch Regional Medical Center

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2015

statutory exception to the immunity granted by law. … Oesch clearly exercised his judgment rather than obeyed orders in determining the best response to plaintiff’s alleged comments.

American Community Mutual Insurance v. Commissioner of Insurance

195 Mich. App. 351 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 1992

The nonmoving party must produce an affidavit or other documentary evidence to establish there is a genuine issue of material fact. … This reading of the statute would render an absurd and unjust result and is clearly not what the *366 Legislature intended.

Heeringa v. Petroelje

279 Mich. App. 444 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 2008

The earliest Michigan caselaw considered it well established that “as to the right of riparian proprietors; and unless a contrary intent of the parties clearly appears from the deeds under which they hold, such proprietors … In summary, no party has cited any case, nor can we find one, establishing a rule specifying how the thread must be established and what evidence — if any — may or must be resorted to in order to find it, other than the simple

Vaughn Guild v. Department of Corrections

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2014

Defendant relied on MCR 2.116(C)(4) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction), MCR 2.116(C)(7) (governmental immunity), and MCR 2.116(C)(10) (lack of genuine issue of material fact). … Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by presenting evidence that (1) he belonged to a protected class, (2) he suffered an adverse employment action, (3) he was qualified

MacKie v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad

215 Mich. App. 20 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 1996

Although Millett Highway is not part of any federal-aid system, the Millett Highway crossing may nonetheless qualify for federal aid for the purpose of safety enhancement. … That section, which merely standardizes orders of judgment and requires certain reductions in certain cases, does not itself establish rights to future damages and costs.

Anderson v. Director, Department of Social Services

101 Mich. App. 488 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1980

A reading of Title XIX clearly indicates the intent of Congress to give the states considerable discretion and latitude in devising their Medicaid Plans. … The testimony also established that an adequate alternative, tooth extraction, was available.

Barrow v. City of Detroit Election Commission

301 Mich. App. 404 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2013

Plaintiff thus has established that mandamus is the proper method of raising his legal challenge to Duggan’s candidacy. … Alternately, when we “interpret” a statute, the primary goal must be to ascertain and give effect to the drafter’s intent, and the judiciary should presume that the drafter intended a statute to have the meaning that it clearly

Stokes v. Millen Roofing Co.

245 Mich. App. 44 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 2001

B Although the facts of Kirkendall are clearly distinguishable from this case, this Court has applied the Kirkendall holding in similar circumstances. … However, apparent authority must be traced to the principal and cannot be established only through the acts of the agent. Id.

Troxler v. Troxler

87 Mich. App. 520 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1978

In addition to that evidence cited by the trial court, we note other testimony which supports the conclusion that it is clearly in the best interests of the children to award custody to defendant. … The court considered the parents equally qualified with regard to emotional ties with the children; capacity to give love, affection and guidance; capacity to provide for material needs; mental and physical health; home,

Wells Fargo Bank v. Cherryland Mall Ltd. Partnership

300 Mich. App. 361 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 2013

CONTEACT CLAUSES Preliminarily, we note that “ ‘[statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and courts have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.’ ” In re Request … The right to substantive due process is violated when legislation is unreasonable and clearly arbitrary, having no substantial relationship to the health, safety, *380 morals, and general welfare of the public.

Felcoskie v. Lakey Foundry Corp.

11 Mich. App. 710 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 1968

In my opinion the problem here is not one of attempting to distinguish between qualifying words in sections 3 and 4 of part 7 (as Member Storie states), but to maintain clearly in mind the requirement that a ‘disability’ … “In the case at issue I feel the proofs at best establish that the environmental atmosphere at defendant’s plant only caused a condition in plaintiff which resulted in total blindness.