Case law

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.

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.

O Donna Logan v. City of Southgate

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2024

Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (immunity), (8) (failure to state a claim), and (10) (no genuine issue of material fact), arguing that plaintiff failed to plead in avoidance of governmental immunity … Plaintiff responded that her claim fell within the scope of the sidewalk defect exception to governmental immunity.

People v. Tanner

222 Mich. App. 626 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1997

. *631 Defendant is challenging the court’s admission of LaLone’s affidavit, which clearly does not constitute a court order. … The trial court is best qualified to hear relevant witnesses’ testimony and gauge credibility. See MCR 2.613(C).

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

20221229_C360377_20_360377.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2022

Summary disposition may only be granted under this subrule “when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Id. … When a plaintiff pleads an intentional tort, the defendant must establish that he is entitled to immunity by proving that -5-  (a) The acts were undertaken

in Re J R Stewart Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2015

Throughout the proceedings, the caseworker discussed with him the importance of establishing suitable housing and a legal income. … In view of this evidence, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that respondent’s financial plan was unrealistic.

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

Marko Law Pllc v. Erin Salling

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2025

“Findings of fact by the trial court may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. … The question, then, is whether such expenses qualify as “actual damages.”

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 of Michigan v. Theodore Joseph Visner

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2020

Nonetheless, the trial court properly found that defendant failed to establish that he was entitled to assert the defense. … The Supreme Court has held that, under the MMMA, § 4 immunity does not extend to a registered qualifying patient who transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient for the transferee’s use because the transferor

In re Consumers Energy Co.

279 Mich. App. 180 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2008

Further, we noted that Detroit Edison and CECo were the only utilities with enough customers to qualify to contribute securitization savings to the LIEEF and concluded that this supported the PSC’s determination that LIEEF … Clearly, this statutory language does not restrict the intended beneficiaries of the LIEEF solely to electric ratepayers.

Hobbins v. Attorney General

205 Mich. App. 194 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 10, 1994

The constitutionality of legislative enactments to protect life is clearly established in our law. [7] *206 When individuals assert constitutional rights against state regulation, whether encompassed by the "zones of privacy … As well said by Judge Cooley, "The right to one's person may be said to be a right to complete immunity: to be let alone." Cooley on Torts, 29.

Eric M Hartfiel v. City of Eastpointe

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 2020

Defendant’s finance director, Randall Blum, established procedures for transferring delinquent water charges from a landlord to a tenant. … Both MCL 123.165 and MCL 141.121(3) clearly permit a lessor to avoid a lien arising from a tenant’s nonpayment of charges for which the tenant is responsible.

Lowe v. Estate Motors Ltd.

147 Mich. App. 523 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 1985

Proof that the plaintiff engaged in an injury-producing act, without more, is not a sufficient basis for establishing that plaintiff was negligent. … Collisions with or without fault of the user are clearly foreseeable by the manufacturer and are statistically inevitable." (Footnotes omitted.)

20231130_C364465_37_364465.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2023

The trial court clearly felt the same way; it told plaintiff’s counsel that it did not have time to comb through plaintiff’s medical records to find support for plaintiff’s argument. … To summarize, to avail herself of the exception to governmental immunity in MCL 691.1405, plaintiff needed to establish that she suffered a “bodily injury . . . resulting from” Sowards’ negligent operation of Westland’s motor

Russ v. Federal Mogul Corp.

112 Mich. App. 449 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1982

Plaintiffs' assertion that they would qualify as "interested shareholders" under the amendment, thereby decreasing their right to vote, is without merit. … But § 301 of the Michigan Business Corporation Act requires a different result when an inequality in voting rights within a class or series is established by amendment of the articles or otherwise.

McKeighan v. Grass Lake Township Supervisor

234 Mich. App. 194 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 19, 1999

“[I]t is the duty of the Court to give the presumption of constitutionality to a statute and construe it as constitutional unless the contrary clearly appears.” … It does not displace the general possession by the owner of the land, but the *208 person entitled to the easement has a qualified possession only, so far as may be needful for its enjoyment.”

In Re Skulina Estate

187 Mich. App. 649 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1991

MRE 702, which provides: If the court determines that recognized scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified … This instruction is permissible only when the evidence not produced is material; here the evidence was clearly collateral to the central issues and only marginally relevant to respondent's credibility.

People v. Walker

265 Mich. App. 530 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 26, 2005

“Testimony,” in turn, is typically “[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.” Ibid. … Regardless of the precise articulation, some statements qualify under any definition — for example, ex parte testimony at a preliminary hearing.[ 4 ] The majority reasons that the complainant’s statements were nontestimonial