Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,308 results
0.55s
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.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished273 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
Cited 28 timesPublished185 Mich. App. 720 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 1990
Two board members clearly agreed to exclude the testimony, albeit for different reasons. … It is for the wcab to pass on the credibility of witnesses and to draw inferences from the facts which it finds established.
Cited 0 timesPublished268 Mich. App. 157 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2005
The affidavits clearly included Dr. Shah as a party in their captions, yet the jury was instructed that Dr. Shah was not a party to this action. The jury was allowed to speculate about Dr. … Borson’s affidavit contained only a qualified opinion based on the limited information available at the time the complaint was filed. Dr. Borson’s affidavit implicated a nonparty.
Cited 3 timesPublishedPeople of Michigan v. Anthony Daniel Walker
Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 7, 2016
In this case, it is clearly the defendant doing the suppressing. Therefore, defendant has not established a Brady violation with respect to these witnesses. II. … In order to establish ineffective trial counsel, the defendant must establish that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and, but for counsel’s error, there is a reasonable probability
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMichigan Bell Telephone Company v. Department of Treasury
Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2024
deduction allowed a deduction for “qualified production activities income.” … There, the Legislature clearly decided to not grant Michigan taxpayers depreciation deductions. MCL 208.9(4)(c).
Cited 0 timesPublishedMichigan Court of Appeals · May 4, 2017
“A finding is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” In re ALZ, 247 Mich App at 271-272. … “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 (Act) first established SIJ status as a path for resident immigrant children to achieve permanent residency in the United States.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedGeneral Motors LLC v. Alphons Iacobelli
Michigan Court of Appeals · May 11, 2026
Thus, Iacobelli was not immune from prosecution. … As for the FCA Defendants’ motion, Iacobelli argued he did not have immunity from prosecution in other federal jurisdictions and that the cooperation agreement would not provide complete immunity.
Cited 0 timesPublishedShah v. CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS
278 Mich. App. 95 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2008
Here, the trial court relied on Pallante to hold that Shah’s severance payment did not qualify as “earnings” under the CCPA. … The inclusion of “bonus” in the definition of earnings clearly negates the suggestion that periodic payment is required.
Cited 0 timesPublished7 Mich. App. 364 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 1967
Those obtaining prizes pay such consideration for them, and the business establishment reaps direct financial benefit.” … by our Supreme Court also established certain basic concepts with regard to the prohibition against lotteries.
Cited 1 timesPublished88 Mich. App. 299 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1979
MCL 168.871(1); MSA 6.1871(1), establishes several prerequisites to a recount of paper ballots. … Normally "qualifying words and phrases refer solely to the last antecedent where no contrary intention appears".
Cited 3 timesPublished15 Mich. App. 463 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 1969
In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors … The atmosphere, primarily resulting from the publicity and court control, that existed in the present case is clearly not of the genre intended to be eliminated by the Sheppard decision, which, therefore, does not impel a
Cited 10 timesPublishedSteven 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.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished246 Mich. App. 260 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2001
The trial court ruled that individuals who have been arrested on a felony warrant and placed in a holding cell in a jail are immune from prosecution under subsection 197(2) until they are formally processed. … If the first general meaning is applied to M.C.L. § 750.197a, then the statute clearly prohibits an escape from police custody during a lawful arrest.
Cited 12 timesPublished248 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 2002
custodial environment] clearly and convincingly established that the best interests of the children required maintaining custody with defendant. … The Legislature also clearly recognized the importance of an established custodial environment to the development of children. Subsection 7(l)(c).
Disagreed with by In Re MJK, 200 P.3d 1106 (2008)Cited 49 timesPublishedMichigan Court of Appeals · May 4, 2017
“A finding is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” In re ALZ, 247 Mich App at 271-272. … “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 (Act) first established SIJ status as a path for resident immigrant children to achieve permanent residency in the United States.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedMichigan Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2023
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint more clearly alleged negligence against LPS and gross negligence against Duron. … The functioning of plaintiff’s wrist was clearly weakened or diminished for some period of time; she had a cast or splint, which would have restricted her ability to move her wrist and hand, and plaintiff testified that for
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCity of Fraser v. Almeda University
314 Mich. App. 79 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2016
Again, the record clearly indicates that defendant established multiple business relationships with Michigan residents and issued diplomas to customers in Michigan after accepting the customers’ applications and fees. … Defendant conceded in the trial court *94 that any academic credential issued or manufactured by it qualifies as a “false academic credential” under Michigan law.
Cited 43 timesPublished58 Mich. App. 455 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 1975
applies only to goods regularly bought and sold in an established commodity market, and we question whether used automobiles are bought and sold in a commodity market. … In view of the damaged condition of the automobile in this case, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to require evidence of book-value to be qualified by a consideration of the actual condition of this particular
Cited 39 timesPublishedVan Every v. Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority
142 Mich. App. 256 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 1985
Pickens was not specifically named as a witness in the pretrial summary, he clearly falls within the proviso of defendant’s witness list which reserved the right to call "plaintiff’s treating and examining doctors”. … personal observations or that the document was prepared by the *265 witness contemporaneously with the event and was an accurate recording of the occurrence, the foundational elements pursuant to MRE 803(5) have not been established
Cited 8 timesPublished
Ask Donna