Case law

People v. Bloom

15 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

People v. Nash

110 Mich. App. 428 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1981

The facts clearly indicate partial, if not total, abandonment. I find it hard to believe that defendant had no knowledge that the box was in the trailer when she left. … The prosecutor may not accomplish by inference what he is clearly prohibited from doing by direct proof.

Hoffman v. Barrett

288 Mich. App. 536 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2010

We conclude that plaintiffs expert was qualified to sign the affidavit of merit. … Therefore, plaintiffs expert was qualified to sign the affidavit of merit. Affirmed.

Van 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

People v. Ullah

216 Mich. App. 669 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 17, 1996

This instruction did not state that defendant had the burden of proving or establishing a reasonable doubt. … Defendant is not entitled to any relief because the jury’s verdict may be clearly deduced by reference to the record, People v Rand, 397 Mich 638, 643 ; 247 NW2d 508 (1976), amended 399 Mich 1040 (1977), and is clearly shown

Deborah Mato v. City of Livonia

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2015

Under the statute it is sufficient to establish that it was simply a proximate cause of the injury. . . . … A court may grant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) based on “immunity granted by law . . . .”

Reid v. DOC, STATE

239 Mich. App. 621 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2000

a constitutional tort because they failed to establish the existence of an official custom or policy mandating the officials’ actions. … The court’s finding in this regard is clearly erroneous because the one sentencing court that testified at trial stated that it did not think that the DOC even required a warrant and did not believe that a hearing following

Jones v. Morgan

58 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

People v. Cords

75 Mich. App. 415 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 3, 1977

We further stated that compliance with the first six criteria required the testimony of the medically qualified individual who had taken the blood sample. … Such testimony established an unbroken chain of custody.

Butcher v. Department of Treasury

141 Mich. App. 116 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1984

The plaintiffs' position is that 1982 PA 269 contravenes Const 1963, art 9, § 7, in that it indirectly establishes a graduated income tax on that level of annual income between $65,000 and $75,000. … We could by arbitrary manipulation make the credits vary only with changes in household income as the plaintiffs have done in their brief, but that clearly is not the necessary result of the statute."

Susan Mickels v. Smart

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2020

See Mack, 467 Mich at 204-205 (explaining that, where governmental immunity applies, a plaintiff’s claim is barred unless it falls within one of the statutory exceptions to immunity). … A person shall not exceed a speed limit established under this section or a speed limit established under section 628. 4 We also note the dissent’s argument that the Legislature only intended for MCL 257.627(6)

Estate of Amarah Filizetti v. Gwinn Area Community Schools

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2020

This sentence unequivocally establishes the duty of a governmental agency to “repair and maintain” public buildings. … As the majority discusses, the panels in question are clearly fixtures, and thus are considered part of the school for purposes of the public building exception.

People v. Anglin

111 Mich. App. 268 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1981

Following a review of the record, we are not convinced that the trial court clearly erred in its finding. IV. Was defendant denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel? … Was venue properly established pursuant to MCL 762.3; MSA 28.846?

People v. Clark

43 Mich. App. 476 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1972

Clearly, this is a case of mutual mistake concerning a basic underlying assumption; on principle, although this is a mistake of law and not of fact, the people are entitled to be relieved of the consequences of that mistake … See GCR 1963. 803.1. 13 See Santobello v New York, 404 US 257 ; 92 S Ct 495 ; 30 L Ed 2d 427 (1971); Anno: Enforceabitity of Plea Agreement, or Plea Entered Pursuant Thereto, With Prosecuting Attorney Involving Immunity From

Doe v. Department of Corrections

240 Mich. App. 199 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2000

Clearly, prisoners are not incarcerated in accommodations that are made available to the public. … Rather all such organizations qualify as do those tax-exempt private agencies which have been established to provide service to the public.

Kevin Ong v. Cheryl Lewis

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2023

Plaintiff, therefore, failed and could not establish a prima facie case of negligence against Lewis. Accordingly, SMART is entitled to governmental immunity and the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against it. … Plaintiff clearly was more than 50% at fault for the accident. The trial court, therefore, erred by not granting defendants summary disposition under MCL 500.3135(2)(b).

Ronan v. Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System

245 Mich. App. 645 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2001

MCL 38.1304(1). 2 The majority opinion in Adrian School concluded that weekly worker’s compensation benefits qualified under this statutory definition. … The redemption *651 agreements do nothing to establish that plaintiff was prevented from teaching because of injury or illness, nor do they specify what amount of the payment awarded might be allocated to such lost time.

In Re Vernon Eugene Proctor Md

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2021

Therefore, respondent did not conduct a “full assessment of the qualifying patient’s medical history” for the purposes of immunity under MCL 333.23424(g). C. … The proposal for decision clearly indicates the time frame during which the negligence occurred.

Grist v. Upjohn Company

16 Mich. App. 452 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1969

We think the trial court did not err in applying the rule of qualified privilege, in its charge to the jury. … “Also, in point on the question as to the burden of proof, as well as on the facts necessary to be shown in order to establish a qualified privilege, are Edwards v.

Richards v. Pierce

162 Mich. App. 308 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 1987

Id. at 58 . 3 *314 In this case, unrefuted testimony of two physicians clearly established that plaintiff’s contraction of arachnoiditis resulted from the dye which remained in his spinal area subsequent to the myelogram. … To qualify as serious, the impairment need not be of an important body function or of the entire body. Id. at 39-40 . Nor need the impairment be permanent. Id. at 68 .