Case law

Iqbal v. Bristol West Insurance Group

278 Mich. App. 31 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2008

The parties do, however, dispute whether plaintiff also *38 qualifies as an owner under MCL 500.3101(2)(g)(i). … reversing the trial court’s ruling, this Court held that the definition of “owner” under MCL 257.37 should be read into the no-fault act in determining priorities between insurance providers and that State Farm could attempt to establish

People v. Mitchell

233 Mich. App. 604 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 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: *617 Less restrictive alternatives are clearly available for each of these claimed threats.

Hawkins v. PEOPLES FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION

155 Mich. App. 237 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 1986

The term of office of all officers shall be one year or until their respective successors are elected and qualified; but any officer may be removed at any time by the board of directors. . . . 7. … Michigan courts clearly recognize that some grounds for discharging an employee are so contrary to public policy as to be actionable. Suchodolski v Michigan Consolidated Gas Co, 412 Mich 692, 695 ; 316 NW2d 710 (1982).

State Highway Commission v. Abood

83 Mich. App. 612 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 1978

The purchase price simply had no probative value where gasoline was clearly in abundance in 1968 but in severe shortage in 1973. … Clearly, defendants in this case had ample opportunity to prove lack of good faith.

Coeus LLC v. City of Walled Lake

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 2022

Thus, “[t]o qualify for absolute immunity from tort liability[,] an individual governmental employee must prove his or her entitlement to immunity by establishing, consistently with the statute’s plain language, (1) that … Indeed, the type of administration Whitt performs clearly is “executive administration.”

Consumers Power Co. v. City of Flint

195 Mich. App. 295 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 1992

The second sentence does not qualify the first sentence or limit the prohibition to local licensing of contractors. … We agree with the trial court that the first sentence of § 9 clearly precludes local licensing in this area and that that prohibition is not limited to contractors.

People of Michigan v. Juan Jose Del Cid

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2020

Simms’s testimony was that she clearly vouched for TH’s credibility. … At the same time, however, a medical expert may offer the opinion that a lack of physical findings does not affirmatively establish that no abuse occurred.

Kmart Michigan Property Services, LLC v. Department of Treasury

283 Mich. App. 647 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 12, 2009

In its summary disposition motion, KMPS argued that it met the definition of a “person” under MCL 208.6(1) of the Single Business Tax Act (SBTA), MCL 208.1 et seq., 1 qualifying it to file a separate SBT return for the period … Because the Department has legal responsibility to collect taxes and is responsible for “[specialized service for tax enforcement, through establishment and maintenance of uniformity in definition, regulation, return and

Bolt v. City of Lansing

238 Mich. App. 37 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 1999

Clearly, the Supreme Court’s decision here established a different analytical framework for distinguishing user fees from a tax, one that perhaps could not have been reasonably anticipated by taxpayers or municipalities. … Prospective application is preferred when overruling an established precedent or when deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. . . .

Kelly Dougherty v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2021

Defendant reported that he was able to clearly see the areas in front of the lower kitchen cupboards and saw no bodies in the room. … DEFENDANT OWED NO LEGAL DUTY Under the GTLA, a governmental employee is entitled to governmental immunity, and, thus, summary disposition, if the plaintiff fails to establish that the employee owed a duty in tort

Randles v. Carriers Insurance

139 Mich. App. 57 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 1984

These statements do not clearly support the proposition that no single point in time existed at which an injury occurred. … Where it is established that the injury or loss 'was a natural and reasonable incident or consequence of the use of the [insured] vehicle,’ Associated Independent Dealers, Inc v Mutual Service Ins Cos, 304 Minn 179, 182;

Jerry Reighard v. Central Michigan University

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 26, 2022

The Legislature has also established conditions precedent to pursuing a claim against the state. Fairley v Dep’t of Corr, 497 Mich 290, 292; 871 -2- NW2d 129 (2015). … Moreover, as this Court has previously stated, “[t]o the extent that statements from Pike suggest that a plaintiff need not comply with MCL 600.6431 for a claim against a state institution, the statements are clearly obiter

Stokes v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

272 Mich. App. 571 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2007

Thus, Sington’s significance is that it clearly overruled Haske . … It is evident from his opinion, as we noted previously, that the magistrate clearly understood that the burden of proof *590 is on plaintiff to establish his disability as defined by Sington .

Tingley v. 900 Monroe, LLC

266 Mich. App. 233 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 2005

“Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) is proper when the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify recovery.” … Although plaintiffs do not now dispute the trial court’s conclusion that witness immunity bars plaintiffs’ claim, plaintiffs argue that the trial court “manufactured” witness immunity for Wardrop by encouraging Dickinson

In Re Hudson

262 Mich. App. 612 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2004

At the conclusion of the case, the trial court found that respondent qualified as a "custodian" under MCL 712A.18(2), so it required him to reimburse petitioner for the cost of the child's care. … On this record, I conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that respondent, a stepparent, was a custodian of the minor child. I would affirm.

Richard Botimer v. MacOmb County Concealed Weapons Board

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2016

Plaintiff next argues that the finding that he has a diagnosed mental illness was clearly erroneous. We disagree. The record establishes that plaintiff was diagnosed with and hospitalized for a mental illness in 2002. … Plaintiff was not qualified to determine whether he was cured or still had a mental illness.

Stephen E Connor v. Unemployment Insurance Agency

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2024

Therefore, it appears that the ALJ properly excluded his fourth-quarter wages in analyzing whether he qualified for benefits. … As a threshold matter, plaintiff is correct that defendant cannot assert sovereign immunity as a defense to constitutional torts.

People of Michigan v. Alenna Marie Rocafort

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 2, 2018

In Manuel, 319 Mich App at 300-302, this Court described the underlying factual circumstances, observing: In this case, defendant is both a qualifying patient and a primary caregiver for five patients … After concluding that the defendant had also established that he had been issued and possessed a valid registry identification card, had properly stored the marijuana plants, and was engaged in the medical use of marijuana

Lisa Kemerer v. State of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2024

“The motion may be granted only when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could justify recovery.” Id. (citation omitted). … Similarly, we decline to apply O’Connor v Eubanks (O’Connor II), 83 F4th 1018 (CA 6, 2023), to this case because the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on qualified and sovereign immunity.

Port Sheldon Beach Association v. Dept of Environmental Quality

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2016

Instead, this provision allows the DEQ to appoint qualified experts to evaluate the accuracy of the 1989 Atlas and then recommend changes that improve its accuracy to the Legislature. … was intended to protect.7 However, given that the Legislature clearly intended the CDA to extend to the water’s edge, we see no reason for the DEQ to establish that the areas so designated by the Legislature meet protective