Case law

Geralds v. Munson Healthcare

259 Mich. App. 225 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 8, 2004

This Court has previously held that “[a]n affidavit is sufficient if counsel reasonably, albeit mistakenly, believed that the affiant was qualified under MCL 600.2169.” … It is a general rule that an appellate decision is given retroactive effect unless it overrules existing precedent or decides an issue of first impression that was not clearly foreshadowed.

Christopher Henderson v. Patricia Lee Lauderdale

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2021

Thus, under MCL 691.1407(1), defendant was immune from tort liability absent an exception. … Instead, as the photos and videos clearly depict, plaintiff crossed into Lauderdale’s lane.

Assn of Home Help Care Agencies v. Dept of Health & Human Services

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2020

according to federal regulations, may establish policies and procedures that he or she considers appropriate, relating to the conditions of participation and requirements for providers established by section … The State Plan declares that “[p]roviders shall be qualified individuals or individuals who contract with or are employed by an agency.”

M1 Transportation LLC v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2026

The court explained that the denial letter “clearly evidenced that PIP coverage was coordinated, not excluded,” and the declarations page for the 2023 policy memorialized that Frye’s “potential savings” included “$5546 for … Additionally, the district court erred by deciding that the denial letter established Frye’s coverage was coordinated, since the denial letter merely constituted extrinsic evidence that could not alter the terms of Frye’s

Kelly Dougherty V City Of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 2022

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

Loftis v. G T Products, Inc

167 Mich. App. 787 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 1988

When reading § 18 and § 19, we are left with the conclusion that § 19 clearly grants to the defendant the right to fire the plaintiff and that the plaintiff, on reading § 19, must know that this provision gives defendant … We note that the Schipani and Chamberlain opinions on which the trial court relied ignore the qualifying language from Hart regarding the fundamental concept of duty.

Rowe v. Noren Pattern & Foundry Co.

91 Mich. App. 254 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1979

Neither was plaintiff's testimony damaged or otherwise qualified by cross-examination. [2] Therefore, it must be taken at face value. … The approach is clearly contrary to prior case law in this state.

People of Michigan v. Brian Phillip Sommer

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2015

“A trial court’s findings of fact may not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. … While a registry card qualifies a patient for the medical use of marihuana, “[i]t does not establish that at the time of the charged offense, the defendant was actually engaged in the protected use of marijuana.”

Mayor of Lansing v. Public Service Commission

257 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2003

As this Court has explained, it is for the PSC to weigh conflicting opinion testimony of the qualified and competent experts to determine how the evidence preponderated. … Expert opinion testimony is “substantial” if offered by a qualified expert who has a rational basis for his views, regardless of whether other experts disagree. Id.

in Re Agd Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2019

“A finding is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” … Thus, instead of importing a definition for “putative father” from MCR 3.903(A)(24), this Court must look to MCL 710.39(2) to decide who qualifies as a “putative father” for purposes of MCL 710.51(6).

People v. Gilbert

55 Mich. App. 168 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 1974

The findings of a trial court in a Walker hearing will only be reversed on appeal if they are clearly erroneous. … With only a confession to prove it, the felony murder theory was not sufficiently established in this case.

Bristol Window and Door, Inc. v. Hoogenstyn

250 Mich. App. 478 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2002

And it has to be said in that connection that the statute seems clearly limited to employer-employee relationships. … As our review of the history of restraint of trade law in Michigan makes clear, the common law in Michigan contemplated the enforceability of noncom-petition agreements that qualified as reasonable.

New Covert Generating Company LLC v. Township of Covert

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2020

A principal residence, qualified agricultural property, qualified forest property, supportive housing property, property occupied by a public school academy, and industrial personal property are exempt from … Rather, they appeared to argue that the Tax Tribunal should treat the record owner of the property assessed as though it were not a party in interest—even though caselaw clearly established that it was a party in interest—because

Singh v. LAND SEA CORPORATION

52 Mich. App. 589 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 1974

discussion of the salary requirement is contained in Craig v Far West Engineering Co, 265 F2d 251, 259-260 (CA 9, 1959): "Although at first blush it does not seem to this Court to be logical, other courts have determined that to qualify … We also point out that the United States Supreme Court has clearly stated that the act’s liquidated damages provision is not penal in its nature.

In Re Peb

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2025

A probate court’s “findings are clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” Id. at 329. … A person can qualify as a “person requiring medical treatment” under MCL 330.1401(a), (b), or (c).

Herald Co. v. Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents

265 Mich. App. 185 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2005

than further good governance. 14 Hence, the public’s right to view government documents is conditional, and FOIAs contain specific exemptions that qualify, and in certain cases, override the right to disclosure. *195 A. … that the requested document covers “other than purely factual materials”; (2) did the public body show that the document is “preliminary to a final agency determination of policy or action”; and (3) did the public body “establish

People v. WILLIAMS 2

45 Mich. App. 630 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 1973

The evidence in this case clearly demonstrates that Mr. Rutledge sensed his impending death at the time he spoke the statement. The trial judge properly admitted it into evidence. … The witness qualifies as a res gestae witness. Maher v People, 10 Mich 212 (1862); People v Ake, 362 Mich 134 (1961).

Dune Ridge Sa Lp v. City of Saugatuck

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2025

(Immunity Motion). … But Dune Ridge’s argument fails to overcome the well-established rule that courts must interpret and enforce unambiguous language as written. Kendzierski, 503 Mich at 311.

Wayne County Prosecutor v. Doerfler

14 Mich. App. 428 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 1968

This allegedly would establish what the “contemporary community standards” were in 1963. … constitutional rights is not clearly apparent.

Gauntlett v. Auto-Owners Insurance

242 Mich. App. 172 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2000

A Forestry Service staffing specialist testified that four of the six people who qualified for the three open positions declined or failed to reply. The decedent therefore would have received a full-time position. … The statute clearly requires a plaintiff in a suit for no-fault survivor’s loss benefits to submit proof of a loss of support that would have been received but for the decedent’s death.