Case law

Cryderman v. City of Birmingham

171 Mich. App. 15 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 1988

"An otherwise unconstitutional ordinance . . . does not lose this character and immunize itself from attack simply by the transfer of property from one owner to another.” Id. … Diminution in property value, standing alone, does not establish unconstitutional confiscation. Penn Central Transportation Co, supra, p 131; Gackler, supra, p 572 .

Sav-Time Inc v. Department of Treasury

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2026

Finally, the audit report and schedules were clearly not prepared in anticipation of litigation. … Here, the Department conducted its audit according to established procedures and statutory requirements.

Higgins v. Pfeiffer

215 Mich. App. 423 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1996

The duty of care owed to plaintiff "must be evaluated by considering the risks plaintiff assumed ... and how those assumed risks qualified defendants' duty to him" Turcotte v. … Without citing Carey and without clearly ruling out liability for negligence, the Overall Court seems to have reintroduced assumption of the risk under questionable rationale.

People of Michigan v. Willie Lee Wimberly

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2016

These reasons are clearly facially race-neutral. … This testimony sufficiently established that he was qualified to offer the cell phone record analysis at issue here.

People of Michigan v. Donald Wayne Barnes III

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 8, 2018

“Section 4 provides a broad grant of immunity from criminal prosecution and civil penalties to registered qualifying patients and connected primary caregivers.” People v Hartwick, 498 Mich 192, 215; 870 NW2d 37 (2015). … Thus, for the person assisting a qualifying patient to claim immunity under § 4, that person must be connected to the qualifying patient through the state registration process.3 Barnes does not assert or provide proof that

People v. Campbell

236 Mich. App. 490 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1999

Clearly, “at the time alleged” refers to the time of the offense. See State v Taylor, 132 NH 314, 318; 566 A2d 172 (1989). … Certainly a defendant is always free to argue that a delay undermined the test results at trial, but placing an affirmative burden on the state to establish a nexus between the test results and the blood alcohol level at

Gerber Products Co. v. Anderson, Clayton & Co.

76 Mich. App. 410 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1977

Furthermore, any employee can transfer within certain time limits rights from one pension fund to another qualified pension fund without any tax consequences. … The importance of clearly and fully disclosing in the registration statement the existence of the FTC investigation and of attenuating the force of the special counsel’s opinion can be seen by considering the investor’s decision

Bass v. Combs

238 Mich. App. 16 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2000

We review a trial court’s decision concerning a motion for a change of venue to determine whether it was clearly erroneous. … There is evidence to establish a prima facie case of wrongful discharge in the underlying case. 4. There is evidence to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the underlying case. 5.

Square Lake Hills Association v. Russell Garland

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2020

Alternatively, third-party defendants argued that assuming a prima facie case was established, Garland could not prove actual malice, which is needed because third-party defendants had qualified immunity. … In responding to their motion, Garland asserted that the affidavit of Esquivel established that genuine issues of material fact existed concerning whether the statements were false, made with malice, constitute defamation

People v. Tennille; People v. Rutledge

315 Mich. App. 51 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2016

The trial court then resolves the challenge by determining whether the defendant has established purposeful discrimination. Id. at 98 . … Brooks, was a college student and otherwise fully qualified to sit. The prosecutor explained that he challenged Brooks because “he looked very nervous to me throughout the questioning.”

Jayden Gohl v. Sharon Turbiak

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 3, 2018

For this reason, we conclude that Turbiak has not established that she is entitled to governmental immunity. … Neither result comports with the Legislator’s clearly expressed intent to limit mandatory reporters to a clearly defined group of professionals.

Amir Kaki Md v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 30, 2024

More importantly, the arbitrator recognized that statutory immunity was presumed under the HCQIA unless plaintiff demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that at least one of the four requirements was not established … Because plaintiff only needed to establish that one of the four requirements was not met in order to deny defendants immunity,4 42 USC 11112(a), and the arbitrator determined that plaintiff did so on this factor, we need

Jayden Gohl v. Sharon Turbiak

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 3, 2018

For this reason, we conclude that Turbiak has not established that she is entitled to governmental immunity. … Neither result comports with the Legislator’s clearly expressed intent to limit mandatory reporters to a clearly defined group of professionals.

Riverbrook v. Abimbola Fabode

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2020

But the Fabodes persevered by attempting to establish that Antony was entitled to retain possession of King as an ESA. … The letter produced by Venet was “clearly a form letter” that was not “credible proof” of Antony’s disability or need for an ESA, Riverbrook asserted. Rather, Ms.

People of Michigan v. Donald Wayne Barnes III

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 8, 2018

“Section 4 provides a broad grant of immunity from criminal prosecution and civil penalties to registered qualifying patients and connected primary caregivers.” People v Hartwick, 498 Mich 192, 215; 870 NW2d 37 (2015). … Thus, for the person assisting a qualifying patient to claim immunity under § 4, that person must be connected to the qualifying patient through the state registration process.3 Barnes does not assert or provide proof that

Jack Morley v. Township of Bangor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2019

governmental immunity. … governmental immunity narrowly.

Cardillo v. Canusa Extrusion Engineering, Inc

145 Mich. App. 361 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 1985

That an attorney is well qualified to engage in such endeavor *370 cannot be denied. * * * Plaintiffs services were not within the exemption provision of the statute hereinbefore quoted. [ 10 ] In Curry v West Point Hills … Unfortunately for plaintiffs, established law does not permit recovery under quantum meruit in these circumstances.

People of Michigan v. Johnnie Vernon Randall

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 2015

With respect to being a primary caregiver, one can safely possess an amount of marijuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of “usable marihuana” for each qualifying patient and “12 marihuana plants” for each qualifying patient … Further, even though some, and perhaps even most, of the marijuana plant material seized from the building consisted of “wet” stems and leaves, thereby not qualifying as “seeds, stalks, and unusable roots” and not qualifying

Children of the Chippewa, Ottawa & Potawatomy Tribes v. Regents of the University of Michigan

104 Mich. App. 482 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 1981

by the act, entitled 'An act to establish a Catholepistemiad or University of Michigania,’ shall be vested, and are hereby vested in the corporation established by this act; subject nevertheless, to the uses, trusts and … The Minnesota case clearly established a trust; it is no authority for the case at bar. There was specific trust language in the Minnesota case.

People v. Sands

82 Mich. App. 25 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1978

The ruling of the trial judge was not clearly erroneous and is upheld by this Court. We have ruled that the arrest was legal and proper and that defendant’s confession was properly admitted. … Before tracking-dog evidence is admissible, the prosecution must establish four conditions which provide a proper foundation.