Case law

Evina v. City of Detroit

191 Mich. App. 90 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 1991

In Hickman , the Supreme Court affirmed a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which recognized and established a common-law work-product privilege. … The public policy considerations and protections enunciated in Hickman would clearly be violated by such strategic discovery.

Gardner v. Department of Treasury

306 Mich. App. 546 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2014

Unambiguous language is given the intent clearly expressed and the statute is enforced as written. Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 236 ; 596 NW2d 119 (1999). … Exemptions are never presumed, the burden is on a claimant to establish clearly his right to exemption, and an alleged grant of exemption will be strictly construed and cannot be made out by inference or implication but must

Hardrick v. Auto Club Insurance

294 Mich. App. 651 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2011

The trial court clearly erred by concluding that ACIA’s discovery violations severely prejudiced Hardrick. … more fully and clearly assessed based on evidence corresponding to this jury instruction.

City of Kalamazoo v. Kts Industries, Inc

263 Mich. App. 23 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2004

Here, plaintiff, as a city, qualifies as such an agency. See Edward Rose Realty, supra at 632-633; *32 Luna Pier v Lake Erie Landowners, 175 Mich App 430, 433 ; 438 NW2d 636 (1989). … As stated, the UCPA clearly is inconsistent with and conflicts with the CSAPCA.

Chad Morrow v. Secretary of State

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2022

This latter standard is indistinguishable from the clearly erroneous standard of review that has been widely adopted in Michigan jurisprudence. … In Thue, 336 Mich App at 47, we applied this immunity provision to prohibit the revocation of probation based on MMMA-compliant use of marijuana.

Smith v. Edwards

249 Mich. App. 199 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2002

focus their analysis on the definition of “driveway” provided in the act, arguing that because the private driveway was to provide ingress and egress to property that did not physically adjoin the cul-de-sac, it does not qualify … Our Supreme Court has explained: A litigant’s mere pledge to establish an issue of fact at trial cannot survive summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).

20241120_C366864_68_366864.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2024

However, his testimony was insufficient to establish that he was qualified as an expert in this regard because his testimony did not establish that by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, he was qualified … The record did not establish that by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, Dr. Ayoub was qualified to represent himself as an expert in Vitamin D deficiency, rickets, or metabolic bone disease.

People of Michigan v. Steven Russell Brcic

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2026

First, the majority’s reasoning rests on factual premises not established in this record. … Any defendant whose numbers merely qualify him for the cell apparently merits a proportionate reduction within the cell.

Craig Murawski v. City of Essexville

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2019

Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) may be granted when “immunity granted by law” bars a claim. … Thus, the contradictory factual accounts qualify as a genuine issue of material fact.

Department of Civil Rights v. Horizon Tube Fabricating, Inc

148 Mich. App. 633 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 1986

was qualified; and (2) that plaintiff failed to use reasonable care and diligence in seeking such a position.” … This Court’s review of the circuit court’s findings in the present case is governed by the clearly erroneous standard of MCR 2.613(C), formerly GCR 1963, 517.1.

Fremont Mutual Insurance v. Department of Treasury

73 Mich. App. 526 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1977

They are still valid and applicable unless they conflict with a long established and recognized rule of law. … An additional issue, not relevant to the present case, was whether natural gas and gas appliances acquired before January 1, 1968, but sold thereafter, qualified as "assets” under § 271 of the Michigan statute.

Tenneco Inc. v. Amerisure Mutual Insurance

281 Mich. App. 429 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2008

STANDARD OF REVIEW The parties’ motions for summary disposition implicate MCR 2.116(0(10) (no genuine issue' of material fact), and MCR 2.116(C)(7) (immunity granted by law). … Plaintiff does not allege, nor can it establish, that justifiable reliance caused it prejudice.

Tim Edward Brugger II v. Midland County Bd of Road Commissioners

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 15, 2018

Governmental immunity does not shield a road commission from liability when it fails to maintain the road in a condition “reasonably safe and convenient for pubic travel.” MCL 691.1402(1). … In the context of civil context, . . . this Court . . . recognized an additional threshold question whether the decision clearly established a new principle of law.

Canton Charter Township v. Department of Social Services

128 Mich. App. 505 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 1983

The Charter Township of Canton brought this action in circuit court, seeking an injunction to prevent defendants from establishing, licensing, or operating eight adult foster care small group homes in areas within the township … The argument that no adult foster care facilities licensed under 1979 PA 218 can qualify for the zoning exemption in MCL 125.286a; MSA 5.2963(16a) because that provision defines "state licensed residential facility” as one

People v. Naugle

152 Mich. App. 227 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1986

Although this Court has never been called upon to construe the foregoing language, the statute clearly endows the trial court with discretion to determine when and to what extent specificity will be required. … is established.

In Re Juror Names

233 Mich. App. 604 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 1999

The value of openness lies in the fact that people not actually attending trials can have confidence that standards of fairness are being observed; the sure knowledge that anyone is free to attend gives assurance that established … The appellate court determined that the trial court's order was overbroad for these purposes: Less restrictive alternatives are clearly available for each of these claimed threats.

Loper v. Cascade Township

135 Mich. App. 106 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 1984

In reaching this conclusion we are mindful of the established principle that the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act is remedial in *112 nature and should be construed in a liberal and humanitarian manner in favor of the … The Marcotte decision clearly supports application of the "arising out of and in the course of employment” standard to claims of volunteer fire fighters, although we note that the Court did not specifically discuss the effect

People v. Kowalski

230 Mich. App. 464 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1998

We review the record de novo but will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless the findings are clearly erroneous. Id. … The Court also observed: At the other extreme, a blanket prohibition against the taking of voluntary statements or a permanent immunity from further interrogation, regardless of the circumstances, would transform the Miranda

People v. Krist

93 Mich. App. 425 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 1979

If the complained-of procedure was, in fact, erroneous, we determine that any error in permitting such testimony was clearly harmless error. … Although there was evidence of tangible disagreement between defendant and counsel, we do not find it sufficient to qualify as adequate cause for substituted counsel.

Schellenberg v. Rochester, Michigan, Lodge No 2225 of the Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks of the United States of America

228 Mich. App. 20 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 1998

In its opinion, the court held that the evidence clearly established plaintiff’s prima facie case that she was treated differently from any man. … Accordingly, we find that plaintiff has satis *36 fied the “but for” test by a preponderance of the evidence. v Defendant claims that the trial court clearly erred in finding that defendant did not establish legitimate non-discriminatory