Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,308 results
1.41s
Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2022
tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint, this Court considers all evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and grants summary disposition only where the evidence fails to establish … Nevertheless, the evidence clearly shows a question of fact whether plaintiff’s injuries “resulted from” Martin’s negligence. Affirmed.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMichigan Court of Appeals · May 18, 2023
On appeal, respondent argues that the trial court clearly erred by finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence and by finding by a preponderance of the evidence that … But the trial court warned: The Court cannot say at this point in time that I’m clearly convinced that the statutory criteria has been established, but that’s not to say that if we find out that
Cited 0 timesUnpublished278 Mich. App. 504 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2008
The Grossman Court was considering the requirement that the plaintiffs attorney must “reasonably believe” that the affiant would be qualified under MCL 600.2169. … Given that there was no evidence that established that plaintiff discovered evidence of any negligence on Reed’s part for his role in King’s intraoperative or postoperative care before the commencement of discovery, plaintiffs
Cited 24 timesPublishedFarm Bureau Insurance Company v. Tnt Equipment Inc
Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2019
By using the modifier “directly,” the Legislature intended “to assure that contracting parties are clearly aware that the scope of their contractual undertakings encompasses a third party, directly referred … As such, plaintiffs’ insureds were incidental beneficiaries only, not qualifying for third- party status under MCL 600.1405. See Schmalfeldt, 469 Mich at 429.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMichigan Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2020
A finding is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, even if there is evidence to support the finding. … A nursing home resident who does not qualify for Medicaid coverage will certainly owe considerably more money to the nursing home than a patient-pay amount in a Medicaid setting.
Cited 0 timesPublishedRamone Thompson v. City of Detroit
Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2023
“Further, the determination regarding the applicability of governmental immunity and a statutory exception to governmental immunity is a question of law that is also subject to review de novo.” … A court may only grant a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development of the case could possibly justify recovery by the plaintiff. Id.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMichigan Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2023
A judge or jury cannot “find that an individual is a person requiring treatment unless that fact has been established by clear and convincing evidence.” MCL 330.1465. … This is clearly different from the situation in Moriconi, so respondent’s analogy to Moriconi is inapposite. -6-
Cited 0 timesUnpublished121 Mich. App. 527 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1982
We decline to hold that testator’s will in this case clearly and unambiguously established the time of vesting at the date of the termination of the trust. … We agree with the probate court that the cited statute which was in effect in 1938 did clearly establish that kindred of the half blood were to inherit equally with those of the whole blood, except where "ancestral” property
Cited 14 timesPublishedMalick Gueye v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2022
Neither of these communications expressly or impliedly establish an intent by State Farm to waive the EUO requirement. … Gueye attempts to characterize State Farm’s final e-mail response as silence, arguing that such silence impliedly established assent to Gueye’s position, but State Farm’s response does not qualify as silence.
Cited 0 timesPublishedPeople of Michigan v. Steven Joseph Rembish
Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 8, 2015
Moreover, the testimony established a motive for the murder. … Defendant has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion when it qualified Fink as an expert on the matter of cell phone record analysis.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedKurt Griggs-Swanson v. Beaumont Hospital Farmington Hills
Michigan Court of Appeals · May 30, 2024
granted by the Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act (PHCIA), MCL 691.1471 et seq. … The only exception to immunity that plaintiff discusses in his brief on appeal is gross negligence.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished254 Mich. App. 50 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2003
Because plaintiff was unable to establish that Dr. … Because the statute clearly states that benefits subject to an exercised lien do not qualify as a collateral source, and BCBSM and Medicare exercised their liens, health insurance benefits provided by BCBSM and Medicare to
Questioned by Wiley v. Henry Ford Cottage Hospital, 257 Mich. App. 488 (2003)Cited 91 timesPublishedMichael Busuito v. Bryan C Barnhill
Michigan Court of Appeals · May 27, 2021
ex-officio members of the Board, other areas of the Bylaws clearly differentiate between the President and the elected members of the Board.” … member of the Board is of no consequence under a plain reading of the applicable statute and the WSU Bylaws, and should -12- WSU wish to limit which type of members qualify
Cited 0 timesPublishedInsurance Institute v. Commissioner of the Office of Financial & Insurance Services
280 Mich. App. 333 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2008
The evidence clearly establishes that, on average, a policyholder with a higher insurance score presents a lower risk and lower expense (due to lower number of claims) than a policyholder with a lower insurance score. … The industry’s experience clearly shows an actual effect on losses and expenses.
Cited 4 timesPublishedMichigan Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2018
With respect to the claim of malicious prosecution, defendants argued that the existence of immunity and probable cause defeated plaintiff’s claim. … Further, because the evidence did not show that Crum acted with reckless disregard for the truth, he was entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCharles Magley III v. M&W Incorporated
Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2018
Additionally, plaintiff argues that the tank and sprayer were not subject to repossession because these items do not qualify as “accessions” within the meaning of the Loan and Security Agreement. … Clearly, ¶ 1 envisions a more permanent attachment, comparable to installing something, while ¶ 9 contemplates a more temporary attachment on par with leaving something inside the property.
Cited 0 timesPublishedAnton, Sowerby & Associates, Inc v. Mr. C's Lake Orion, LLC
309 Mich. App. 535 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2015
And plaintiff never clearly stated any objection that could be raised against the seller. … To establish either, a claimant must show falsity, malice, and special damages.
Cited 27 timesPublishedMichigan Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2026
Jerome Eck’s competing expert opinion established that Robbins’ opinion was incorrect. … ANALYSIS Plaintiff sought to hold the City liable for BTW’s injuries under the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity in MCL 691.1405.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPeople of Michigan v. Jon Sajd Abid
Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2018
“[E]ach qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.” MCL 333.26426(d). … Put another way, where the parties do not dispute that Hakim did not have a defense and was not immune from prosecution under §§4 or 8 of the MMMA,2 “ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to a criminal prosecution
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPeople of Michigan v. Jon Sajd Abid
Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2018
“[E]ach qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.” MCL 333.26426(d). … Put another way, where the parties do not dispute that Hakim did not have a defense and was not immune from prosecution under §§4 or 8 of the MMMA,2 “ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to a criminal prosecution
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna