Case law

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Hudson Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2025

“Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) is appropriate when a claim is barred because of immunity granted by law.” Mays v Snyder, 323 Mich App 1, 25; 916 NW2d 227 (2018). … Summary disposition may be granted only when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify recovery. Id.

Ava Cetera v. Lauren Mileto

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2022

The court also ruled as a matter of law that Mileto did not act with malice; therefore, Mileto was shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … Indeed, absent defamation per se and special harm in the form of actual business losses, the elements of defamation cannot be established. Smith, 487 Mich at 113.

Great Lakes Water Authority v. Midwest Memorial Group LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2024

For these reasons, we disagree with defendant that the project qualifies as a waste-related use. … The project does not qualify as either a waste-related use or a major utility.

People v. Hill

257 Mich. App. 126 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2003

Here, the gasoline was clearly used as an offensive and injurious substance when it was sprayed inside a retail establishment. … In the case sub judice, gasoline qualifies under the substance and compound provisions of both § 209 and § 210.

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

McElroy v. Michigan State Police Criminal Justice Information Center

274 Mich. App. 32 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2007

Mich App 527, 532 ; 655 NW2d 251 (2002) (holding that “[njothing will be read into a statute that is not within the manifest intention of the Legislature as gathered from the act itself”). 4 Accordingly, McElroy cannot establish … or disabilit[y] imposed by law upon conviction of a crime,” MCL 769.4a(5), because, although McElroy is not qualified to have his requested documents destroyed, any alleged disqualification or disability is not “imposed .

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.

People v. Henry

239 Mich. App. 140 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2000

Clearly, defense counsel was faced with a problem when the trial court reversed its initial ruling regarding the instruction after the presentation of proofs. … Jury instructions should be considered as a whole rather than extracted piecemeal to establish error. Id.

Fritz v. St Joseph County Drain Commissioner

255 Mich. App. 154 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 2003

The Portage Creek Drain was established in the early 1900s. … Clearly, the Drain Commissioner was invested with the discretion to so find.

Lincoln v. Gupta

142 Mich. App. 615 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 1985

Carey from liability or given him immunity in exchange for perjured testimony. Plaintiff argues that such prejudice could not have been cured by a cautionary instruction. … Clearly, the court rules contemplate such an overlap.

People v. Heikkinen

250 Mich. App. 322 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2002

Defendant maintains that Richard Heikkinen was not testifying for the state, and there was clearly no promise of leniency. … When an accomplice testifies for the prosecution he may have an interest in prevaricating *334 in favor of the prosecution to obtain favors or even immunity. ...

Platt Convenience Inc v. City of Ann Arbor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 2024

See Bolt v City of Lansing (On Remand), 238 Mich App 37, 59; 604 NW2d 745 (1999) (“Clearly, Rule 3.501, along with all other court rules, applies in the Court of Appeals pursuant to MCR 1.103.”) (emphasis added). … “To show adequacy, the proponents must show that (1) counsel is qualified to pursue the proposed class action, and (2) the members of the class do not have antagonistic or conflicting interests.”

People v. Mangiapane

85 Mich. App. 379 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 1978

Clearly, Michigan’s new codified definition is closest to the ALI model. … for mentally retarded persons; to establish certain rights of persons who receive mental health services; to establish financial liability for the receipt of public mental health services; to establish certain miscellaneous

August Schutt v. Smart

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 27, 2021

Moreover, Thomas only had to stop the bus because she moved the bus in the first place, so her moving the bus before plaintiff was seated was clearly a cause in fact of plaintiff’s injury. … That Thomas’s moving of the bus ultimately caused plaintiff’s injury is not conjecture because that theory of causation is clearly deducible from the known facts or conditions.

Nelson v. Associates Financial Services Co. of Indiana, Inc.

253 Mich. App. 580 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2003

(t) Entering into a consumer transaction in which the consumer waives or purports to waive a right, benefit, or immunity provided by law, unless the waiver is clearly stated and the consumer has specifically consented to … Consequently, one cannot conclude that plaintiff’s claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery.

People v. Seeburger

225 Mich. App. 385 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1997

a need *393 for transportation under one of the circumstances listed in subsection 7 of 625b, and establishes that public transportation is not available. … Because subsections 10 and 7 of § 625b use the word “shall” in their designations, and because these provisions qualify each other, we conclude that the subsections must be read as restrictive and exhaustive.

In Re Raymond T Conley Trust

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2024

Conley Trust was established on November 30, 1989. Raymond T. Conley was the grantor of the trust, and he and his wife, Lois M. Conley, were the initial cotrustees. … The conveyance of the house “then triggered the issuance of the K-1s that went to not the trust, but to the qualified trust beneficiaries for capital gains.”

In Re Raymond T Conley Trust

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2024

Conley Trust was established on November 30, 1989. Raymond T. Conley was the grantor of the trust, and he and his wife, Lois M. Conley, were the initial co- trustees. … The conveyance of the house “then triggered the issuance of the K-1s that went to not the trust, but to the qualified trust beneficiaries for capital gains.”

People v. Clark

315 Mich. App. 219 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2016

Rather, the DOC Parole Board is vested with the authority to grant “parole” to qualified prison inmates. In re Parole of Bivings, 242 Mich App 363, 372 ; 619 NW2d 163 (2000); MCL 791.231 et seq. … Because MCL 768.7a(2) clearly and unambiguously refers only to parole, we must enforce the statutory provision as written. Gardner, 482 Mich at 50 .

46th Circuit Trial Court v. Crawford County

266 Mich. App. 150 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 2005

These findings were based on the record evidence and were not clearly erroneous. … Compo clearly indicates that the Board knew of the error and purposely included the figure in its resolution.