Case law

Mid-Michigan Farm & Grain Ass'n v. Henning

127 Mich. App. 735 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 1983

We hold that plaintiff’s action does not qualify as a taxpayer’s suit. *745 Guidance for this holding is found in Menendez v Detroit: 9 "In each of these cases it is clearly recognized that prerequisite to a taxpayer’s right … A review of the 1980 amendments clearly indicates that plaintiff does not have standing to challenge their constitutionality.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Country Place Condominium Ass'n

304 Mich. App. 582 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2014

A defense to a claim is invalid for the purposes of MCR 2.116(C)(9) when the defendant’s pleadings are so clearly untenable that as a matter of law no factual development could possibly deny the plaintiffs right to recovery … The Whitman Court reiterated the primary rules governing statutory construction: When interpreting a statute, we follow the established rules of statutory construction, the foremost of which is to discern and give effect

Greater Bible Way Temple of Jackson v. City of Jackson

268 Mich. App. 673 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2006

Indeed, defendants’ argument does not clearly differentiate between the two. The record does not portray the control of urban sprawl as a compelling governmental interest in this case. … The Establishment Clause arguments are essentially the same.

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.

Rusha v. Department of Corrections

307 Mich. App. 300 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2014

Hence, plaintiff’s constitutional tort claim clearly seeks redress for his personal injuries. … This prohibition clearly proscribes a specific evil: the state inflicting cruel or unusual punishment on a person.

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).

Howard Schrock v. City of Linden

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2018

It does not clearly identify Ripley Road, or its eastern half, as a township or county road. … The map clearly shows only 1.5 miles of Ripley Road in green.

Blank v. Department of Corrections

222 Mich. App. 385 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1997

We find these rules to be clearly within the subject matter of the enabling statute. See Dykstra, supra at 485-486 . … The rules provide that prisoners shall be able to visit with qualified members of the clergy and attorneys on official business.

Weishuhn v. LANSING CATHOLIC DIOCESE

287 Mich. App. 211 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 2010

With regard to the second factor, plaintiffs teaching of religion classes and her involvement in planning masses and preparing students for confirmation and reconciliation services clearly have religious significance. … Our ruling does not reduce or immunize statutory reporters who are ministerial employees of religious institutions from the consequences if they fail to meet their mandatory reporting duties because they fear retaliation

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.”

Takarie Nappier v. Governor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2019

There is no provision in the MSDWA either establishing a private right of action or abrogating a private right of action. … Defendants replied to plaintiffs’ response to their motion for summary disposition, arguing that they are clearly immune from any claims of ordinary negligence and the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction over claims against

McCahill v. Commercial Union Insurance

179 Mich. App. 761 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 1989

Defendant argues that the language of this statute, along with the language of the insurance policy, established that plaintiff was required to repair or replace his property in order to qualify for recovery of replacement … Plaintiff basically contends that the jury determined the replacement cost of plaintiff’s dwelling to be $80,000, and that the jury determination may not be set aside unless it is clearly erroneous. MCR 2.613(C).

Bronson Health Care Group Inc v. Esurance Property & Casualty Ins

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2023

And, according to plaintiff, DIFS’ interpretation is not “clearly wrong” because it is consistent with “the whole point” of MCL 500.3107c. … Given this, DIFS’ interpretation is “clearly wrong” because it adds a requirement to the statute that is not discernible from the statute’s text.

People v. Maben

313 Mich. App. 545 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2015

Maben first argues that the trial court erred when it scored PRV 5 at 20 points; specifically, he argues that he only has six qualifying prior misdemeanor convictions, not seven or more. … Thus, it was not necessary to establish that Maben’s brother actually went to the hospital.

People v. Spencer

154 Mich. App. 6 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 1986

We will not reverse the lower court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence unless that ruling was clearly erroneous. People v Bandy, 105 Mich App 240, 244 ; 306 NW2d 465 (1981), lv den 413 Mich 909 (1982). … offense. 2 Because we find the warrant defective on this ground, we do not decide whether the affidavit sets forth sufficient facts from which one may conclude that the informant is credible. 3 The affidavit doesn’t even qualify

Estate of Marguerite Schubert v. Department of Treasury

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2017

(b) The owner has not established a new principal residence. … Because the definition of “principal residence” clearly provides that a person can only have one place that he or she holds out as his or her “true, fixed, and permanent home to which, whenever absent, he or she intends to

Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v. Wayne County

203 Mich. App. 537 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 1994

authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified or from increasing the rate of an existing tax above that rate authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified, without the approval of a majority of the qualified … established consequences, occurs, without regard to when any individual taxpayer suffers monetary injury.

People v. Garland

152 Mich. App. 301 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1986

Finally, we note that defendant failed to object to the court's determination to qualify the child as a witness. … Their erroneous admission was clearly prejudicial. I would reverse.

Johnson v. White

261 Mich. App. 332 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2004

in Pohutski v City of Allen Park, 465 Mich 675 ; 641 NW2d 219 (2002), when it revisited the issue whether § 7 of the governmental tort liability act, MCL 691.1407, permitted a trespass-nuisance exception to governmental immunity … RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF DEROSE Turning to the case before us, we find that the DeRose decision clearly established a new principle of law by addressing for the first time the constitutionality of MCL 722.27b and declaring

Wanda Hicks v. Herman Ruiz

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2025

“Expert testimony is required to establish the applicable standard of care and a breach of that standard.” Id. … Ankle reconstructive surgeries of any sort were clearly within the general ambit of defendant’s experts’ fields of expertise.