Case law

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

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.

Anthony Davis v. City of Kalamazoo

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 6, 2021

Therefore, plaintiff’s case was barred by governmental immunity. … Some of those potholes had clearly been patched at some point but the patching broke down over time.

People of Michigan v. Aaron James Clark

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2019

“[T]he smell of marijuana alone by a person qualified to know the odor may establish probable cause to search a motor vehicle, pursuant to the motor vehicle exception to the warrant requirement.” … Defendant further argues that he is immune from prosecution under the MMMA because he received a medical marijuana patient card after his arrest.

Hollowell v. Career Decisions, Inc

100 Mich. App. 561 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 1980

Every well-pled allegation is assumed true and the motion is properly granted only where the plaintiff’s claims are so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify a right to recover. … privilege in the statement made at the board meeting regarding the performance of Career Decisions, Inc., and because plaintiff has not alleged specific facts supporting malice such that would remove the statements from the qualified

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

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.

Pamela L Trees v. Pfizer Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2018

Therefore, the court found that plaintiff had not established a claim against Meijer. … A motion brought under subrule (C)(8) should be granted only when the claim is clearly so unenforceable as a matter of law that no factually development could establish the claim and justify recovery. Id.

People v. Rice

231 Mich. App. 126 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1998

The record clearly indicates that the trial court failed to follow the mandate of Adkins, supra, and substantially comply -with Anderson, supra, and MCR 6.005(D). … We urge our Supreme Court to revisit the timeliness issue and establish specific timelines for the assertion of the right to proceed in propria persona.

Estate of Cheryl Ann Buol v. Hayman Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2018

A “qualified institution” is defined by MCL 390.1602(c). No party argues that the University of Wisconsin is not a qualified institution. … TITLE-OBJECT CLAUSE 5 Further, while this Court in Fraser noted, albeit without relying on it, that “the legislative analysis of the statute at issue clearly indicates that the purpose of the [ACEA] is to prevent the

Taylor v. United States Postal Service

163 Mich. App. 77 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1987

As the claimant in an unemployment compensation case, the claimant herein had the burden of *81 proof to establish her eligibility for benefits under § 28. … Claimant’s physician, however, clearly restricted her from any type of employment requiring sitting or standing longer than two hours, or lifting, pushing or pulling anything over twenty or twenty-five pounds, or from any

Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist II v. Bd of State Canvassers

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 27, 2021

The 2012 amendments also added a factuality requirement so that a petition must now state the reasons for recall both “factually and clearly.” … If the use of the term “course of conduct” in MCL 168.951a(3) disqualifies isolated actions as legitimate reasons for a recall, presumably few of a governor’s official acts would qualify, and such a result cannot stand.4

Jerome Dubrulle v. Great Lakes Water Authority

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2026

As such, they have immunity from tort liability unless an exception to that immunity applies. … To proceed with this suit, Plaintiffs must establish an exception to governmental immunity under the GTLA. MCL 691.1417.

Estate of Cheryl Ann Buol v. Hayman Company

323 Mich. App. 649 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2018

A “qualified institution” is defined by MCL 390.1602(c). No party argues that the University of Wisconsin is not a qualified institution. … TITLE-OBJECT CLAUSE 5 Further, while this Court in Fraser noted, albeit without relying on it, that “the legislative analysis of the statute at issue clearly indicates that the purpose of the [ACEA] is to prevent the

Steven Buller v. Emmett Charter Township

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2021

ANALYSIS 2 At oral argument before this Court, plaintiff conceded that his conversion claims are barred by governmental immunity under MCR 2.116(C)(7). Accordingly, we will not discuss those claims. … Further, plaintiff has not established a property right to a pension or fringe benefits and so his 42 USC 1983 claim alleging an unlawful deprivation of property is also without merit.

Hackel v. Macomb County Commission

298 Mich. App. 311 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2012

There is no language qualifying the phrase “contracts of the County.” … The party challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance has the burden to establish that it is clearly unconstitutional. Id. at 162 .

in Re S R Richardson Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2019

Furthermore, There is a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary … established by clear and convincing evidence.

Arthur Chapman v. Officer D Mack

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2018

(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 … test as the standard for defining the qualified immunity from intentional tort liability provided to governmental employees at common law.

Schadewald v. Brule

225 Mich. App. 26 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 1997

Even if the burden on plaintiffs’ property were at issue, the Brulés have not established that relief is unwarranted. … We review a trial court’s decision regarding the imposition of a sanction to determine if it is clearly erroneous.

People v. Jambor

273 Mich. App. 477 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2007

Schwab observed Brien prepare some of the cards using regularly established practices. … The Crawford Court declined to provide a comprehensive list of what hearsay statements are testimonial. *487 However, the Crawford Court went so far as to hold that prior trial testimony clearly constituted testimonial hearsay