Case law

Lease Acceptance Corp. v. Adams

272 Mich. App. 209 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2006

LESSOR SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN, ERECT, TEST, ADJUST OR SERVICE THE EQUIPMENT, ALL OF WHICH LESSEE SHALL PERFORM, OR CAUSE TO BE PERFORMED BY QUALIFIED THIRD PARTIES. … Hence, there was no evidence submitted by defendants establishing that plaintiff engaged in any illegal or improper acts in contracting with defendants for a specific forum, and the evidence submitted by plaintiff established

Gilliam v. Hi-Temp Products, Inc.

260 Mich. App. 98 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2003

This Court must presume the Legislature intended the meaning clearly expressed and must enforce a statute as written. Gladych, supra; Freeman, supra at 96. … The Blankenship court agreed, finding that the Illinois legislature intended to “to establish a definite point in time when a corporation ceases to exist.” Id. at 574.

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

Matter of Blackshear

686 N.W.2d 280 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 2004

We conclude that Chapter 5 of the Mental Health Code comports with the legislative intent to leave it to the parents of a mentally retarded juvenile and to the qualified mental health professionals to follow the specific … The trial court's written opinion clearly establishes the court's frustration with the fact that it was without legislative directive to assist the juvenile whom the court determined was in need of mental health care and

People v. Riemersma

104 Mich. App. 773 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 1981

Clearly, neither defendant nor defense counsel consented to the mistrial on the record, therefore, resolution of the question depends on whether manifest necessity caused the declaration of mistrial. … There was no attempt to qualify this evidence under MRE 404(b), nor would the evidence have been admissible under the relevant criteria.

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.

AFT Michigan v. State

315 Mich. App. 602 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 2016

Further, many courts have held that impairments of government employee contracts by the state that have indefinite application clearly violate the Contracts Clause. … The Adams court held that an action to enforce pay *625 ment of a statutory obligation for payment, unlike a contract for payment, does not establish a vested property right, without which a takings claim cannot arise.

People v. Sobczak-Obetts

238 Mich. App. 495 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 2000

Defendants do not argue that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause, and they do not articulate any prejudice that resulted from the noncompliance with § 4. … Although defendant was not provided the affidavit before her preliminary examination, she eventually obtained a copy of the affidavit and clearly had the opportunity to challenge the basis for the warrant.

Colleen Bodnar v. St John Providence Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2019

This contractual disclaimer clearly communicated to employees that the employer did not intend to be bound by the policies stated in the handbook. … However, the policy clearly states that employment would end on the job elimination date for associates who had been unable to find alternate placement.

People of Michigan v. Tyrill Lamont Wade

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2025

—who was qualified as an expert in forensic pathology—performed an autopsy on Taylor, which Fink attended. Both Virani and Fink observed multiple bruises on Taylor’s body in various stages of healing. … Defendant’s alleged offense of murdering Taylor, with whom he had a dating relationship, clearly fits the definition of an “offense involving domestic violence.”

Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc

246 Mich. App. 645 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 2001

The limited duty doctrine establishes the “outer limits” of liability and “thereby prevents] a jury from requiring [a stadium owner] to take precautions that are clearly unreasonable.” Bellezzo, supra at 554 . … Clearly, there was a screen behind home plate and there was no proof whatsoever that persons wanting seats protected by the screen could not be accommodated.

University Rehabilitation Alliance, Inc. v. Farm Bureau General Insurance

279 Mich. App. 691 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2008

A finding is clearly erroneous where this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. … The court found that plaintiffs attorneys were highly qualified and skilled attorneys who obtained payment of $211,965 to plaintiff.

Russo v. Department of Licensing & Regulation

119 Mich. App. 624 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 1982

Griffin was unaware of the applicable standard of care and therefore did not qualify as an expert witness. … We believe the holding in Blumer is clearly inapplicable to the present case.

Tenita Webb-Eaton v. Wayne County Community College District

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2017

“Governmental immunity is a question of law that is also reviewed de novo on appeal.” … The deposition testimony does not establish that Shavers failed to act in good faith.

People v. Elliott

295 Mich. App. 623 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 2012

A finding is clearly erroneous if this Court is “left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” People v Muro, 197 Mich App 745, 747 ; 496 NW2d 401 (1993). … We reject the contention that tax investigations are immune from the Miranda requirements for warnings to be given a person in custody.

Iesha Fisher v. Kalamazoo Regional Psychiatric Hospital

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2019

The magistrate found that defendants failed to establish that the overpayment occurred because of any fraud by plaintiff. … To provide additional relief to employees, the Commission has further qualified the right of reimbursement by strictly limiting it to cases where the employee engaged in fraud to obtain the overpayment.

Warren's Station, Inc v. City of Bronson

241 Mich. App. 384 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2000

Where the moving party has produced evidence in support of the motion, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to establish that a genuine question of material fact exists. MCR 2.116(G)(4). … The court ruled that the nongasoline retail functions of the facility, i.e., convenience store, restaurant, and Laundromat, were clearly permitted under the B-3 zoning.

Martha Cavill v. State of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2022

Our Supreme Court granted leave in both cases and in its opinion explained: [W]hile MCL 600.6431 does not “confer governmental immunity,” it establishes conditions precedent for avoiding the governmental … It is well established that governmental immunity is not an affirmative defense, but is instead a characteristic of government. Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 186, 198; 649 NW2d 47 (2002).

P Linda Molitoris v. Saint Mary Magdalen Catholic Church

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 4, 2024

The doctrine of charitable immunity met the same fate in Parker v Port Huron Hosp, 361 Mich 1, 25; 105 NW2d 1 (1960). … Historically, many rationales were advanced in support of charitable immunity; Parker discusses a sampling. Id. at 11-16.

Corning, Inc v. Department of Treasury

212 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 1995

On appeal, the United States Supreme Court employed similar reasoning in determining that the taxpayer had failed in its effort to qualify for constitutionally required relief from three-factor apportionment. … Coming’s claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of *12 law that no development of the facts alleged 6 could possibly justify a right to recovery.