Case law

Barbara Baker v. Charter Township of Van Buren

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 2018

Ross provides qualified immunity from intentional tort liability for government employees. Id. at 473. … The Court clearly stated, “The Constitution does not compel so rigid a schedule, however.” Id.

Catherine Puetz Md v. Spectrum Health Hospitals

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2018

Puetz’s complaint does not clearly identify the statements that she contends placed her in a false light. Her complaint provides: 77. … Thus, when completed, the IP policy was clearly in place, as were at least some of the contracts Puetz signed.

Travelers Indemnity Company v. Barbara Pellow

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 2016

“Michigan case law expressly provides that an action in tort may not be maintained where a contractual agreement exists, unless a duty, separate and distinct from the contractual obligation, is established.” … provided by law, unless the waiver is clearly stated and the consumer has specifically consented to it

Brody v. Deutchman (In Re Rhea Brody Living Trust)

321 Mich. App. 304 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2017

The probate court did not clearly err in concluding that the option contract shifted interests under the trust to favor Jay. … Robert and Jay have failed to establish any error requiring reversal of the portion of the order setting aside the option agreement.

People v. Thompson

111 Mich. App. 324 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1981

Although the drug scheme and subsequent threats undoubtedly qualified for admission under the "similar acts” statute or MRE 404(b) as prior bad acts tending to establish motive, we agree that defendant’s escapee status was … There is no question that the defendant could not have prevented the victim-wife from testifying regarding the drug scheme and death threats because the statute clearly provides an applicable, expressed exception to the spousal

People of Michigan v. Saad Akram Bahoda

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2016

There is nothing to indicate that Allie would not have testified against defendant but for the alleged grant of immunity and the testimony she provided established only that defendant was at the restaurant, that he went to … Nor does defendant clearly explain how this rendered Berg’s representation ineffective.

20221117_C358755_27_358755.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2022

A “plaintiff must plead her case in avoidance of immunity.” Id. at 198. … But the Governor was clearly acting, at the very least, under implied authority, even if the Supreme Court later ruled against that authority.

Beaumont v. Brown

65 Mich. App. 455 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 1975

Prosser, Privacy, supra, at p 389. *462 Plaintiff does not allege appropriation, and that category is clearly not relevant here. … He is unable *471 to fly; he is unable to get up early; he is unable to go into dirty or dusty industrial establishments, etc.

Brenda Burton v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2019

A motion for summary disposition under this section is properly granted when, considering only the pleadings, the alleged claims are clearly unenforceable as a matter of law and no factual development could justify recovery … To assert a viable claim against a governmental agency, a plaintiff must plead facts that establish the applicability of one of the exceptions to governmental immunity.

Justin William Horazdovsky v. Amanda Mae Horazdovsky

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2026

If the moving party establishes that proper cause or a change of circumstances exists, the trial court then determines whether there is clear and convincing evidence that modification of the child’s established custodial … Here, plaintiff was not qualified as an expert, and therefore the admissibility of his testimony is governed by MRE 701.

People of Michigan v. Juan Carlos Muniz

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2022

Cottrell defined the parameters of his knowledge base, which were adequate to qualify him. … The trial court qualified Dr. Simms as an expert in “child sexual assault examination.”

Kimberly Rodriguez v. Board of Regents of University of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 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 test by showing the … On appeal, Kendrick and Foster bear the burden of establishing that they are entitled to immunity.

Carr v. General Motors Corp.

135 Mich. App. 226 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1984

Since plaintiffs back condition with the weight lifting restriction imposed thereon is clearly related to the particular job position in question, defendant asserts that plaintiffs condition is not a handicap under the HCRA … On appeal, defendant argued that plaintiffs injury did not qualify as a "handicap” since the injury was not "unrelated” to the job. That is precisely the defense raised in the case before us.

O'Donnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

70 Mich. App. 487 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 1976

The plaintiffs qualified for the maximum survivor’s loss of $1,000 per 30-day period. They also qualified for social security benefits of approximately $560 per month. … otherwise qualifying for benefits under the programs.

Beach v. Lima Township

283 Mich. App. 504 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2009

Here, plaintiffs did not expressly seek to alter a recorded plat. 6 hi Defendant also contends that the trial court clearly erred by finding that plaintiffs established adverse possession. We disagree. … In light of the strong evidence of plaintiffs’ uses inconsistent with the use of the areas as roads, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err by finding that plaintiffs established clear and cogent proofs of possession

Newsome v. Board of State Canvassers

69 Mich. App. 725 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 1976

brand sold by that distributor, nor refuse to pay to the dealer its full refund value in cash, except as provided in subsection (7). (7) Every beverage container sold or offered for sale by a dealer within thisstateshall clearly … after written notice and heating afforded to the person who filed the origmal application for certification of the beverage container under this section, the commission determines that the beverage container is no longer qualified

Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Insurance Commissioner

139 Mich. App. 109 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1984

She also held that BCBSM failed to establish that the use of such factors was appropriate. … She clearly held that several independently sufficient reasons existed for disapproving the rates.

Jawad a Shah Md Pc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 8, 2018

I respectfully suggest that the majority is mistaken in its view that the addition of an allegation to establish standing when the issue is raised “commences” a new “action.” … When the doctrine of charitable immunity was overruled in Parker v.

People v. Orsie

83 Mich. App. 42 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 8, 1978

They are: 1) it is necessary to show that the handler is qualified to handle the dog; 2) it must be shown that the dog was trained and accurate in tracking humans; 3) it is necessary *45 to show that the dog was placed on … It disregards the language in Atley which states that Dirring did not even involve an inference upon an inference, and it ignores the assertion in Atley that "the Dirring language, in its unconditional form, is clearly inadequate

TUCKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. Allied Chucker Co.

235 Mich. App. 550 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 1999

Contrary to defendant's assertion, plaintiff moved to have Markowski qualified as an expert in accounting. Thereafter, the trial court qualified Markowski as an expert witness in certified public accounting. … With these facts established, I next address the pivotal question: When did plaintiff's claim accrue?