Case law

Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 2018

Plaintiff Spyke is a qualified elector registered to vote in Ingham County and is a former paid employee of a political candidate. … Its duties are established by law; MCL 168.22(2) and MCL 168.841. It canvasses initiative petitions to determine if the requisite number of qualified and registered electors has signed the petition.

Wilkins v. General Motors Corp.

204 Mich. App. 693 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 2, 1994

Clearly, pursuant to Murdock, Ms. Wilkens [sic] must be found to be not disabled as of September 30, 1985. The Administrative Law Judge found that Ms. … Cash has impaired her ability to compete in the general field of unskilled labor by reducing the *700 number of jobs for which she is qualified by one job.

In Re N F Scott Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2023

REFUSAL TO QUALIFY BACHMAN AS AN EXPERT WITNESS Respondent argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not qualifying Bachman as an expert witness. We disagree. … “MRE 702 establishes prerequisites for the admission of expert witness testimony.” People v Kowalski, 492 Mich 106, 119; 821 NW2d 14 (2012).

Madson v. Jaso

317 Mich. App. 52 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2016

That the order does not have a specific end date does not mean that it is not clearly an interim order. … An extension of this Court’s jurisdiction to incorporate legal custody would so expand the rule as to nullify the qualifying language “affecting the custody of a minor.”

Holton v. Ward

303 Mich. App. 718 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2014

use the entire surface of the watercourse for *726 recreational purposes. 7 Such rights are distinct from other state-law water-related legal privileges, such as the public right of recreational access, which allows for qualified … “The trial court’s decision is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left wdth a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id.

in Re Mary Margaret Chartier Revocable Living Trust

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2019

The probate court found that “[t]he evidence presented clearly establishes a presumption of undue influence by [Wagner] in Mary’s completion of the Restatement [of her trust].” … If they were, this work product is cloaked with a qualified immunity without regard to whether it was prepared by an attorney or by some other person and whether such other person was engaged by an attorney.

Lewis v. Bridgman Public Schools

275 Mich. App. 435 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2007

[W]e concur with the [hearing referee's] finding that the evidence nonetheless establishes adverse effect." … The school district further asserts that, as *834 a matter of public policy, the tenure commission's decision "sets a dangerous precedent essentially providing Michigan teachers immunity from termination for even the most

In Re Butterfield Estate

100 Mich. App. 657 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 1980

Butterfield, who died in 1936, established a trust, most of the income of which was to be paid to his surviving widow and to his six children. … That section of the Revised Probate Code, MCL 700.598; MSA 27.5598, provides that a testamentary trustee may proceed under article 8 upon qualifying and filing his inventory.

Dowerk v. Oxford Charter Township

233 Mich. App. 62 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1999

This provision for the public safety is clearly a legitimate governmental interest. Bevan v Brandon Twp, 438 Mich 385, 399-400 ; 475 NW2d 37 (1991). … Mere disparity in value between potential uses for property does not meet the threshold necessary to establish a taking. Id. at 405 .

People v. Norwood

70 Mich. App. 53 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 1976

First, it is necessary to show that the handler is qualified to handle the dog. Accord, McDonald v State, 145 Ark 581, 584 ; 224 SW 976, 977 (1920). … However, the court's findings clearly show that this testimony was incidental to the verdict.

Boggerty v. Wilson

160 Mich. App. 514 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1987

Plaintiffs clearly presented no facts that tended to show conduct implementing or executing a policy statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated by the city. … Donley was qualified as an expert in the area of police hiring and training.

In re Leete Estate

290 Mich. App. 647 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2010

Clearly, EPIC defines “governing instrument” broadly. The term includes both a will and a deed. MCL 700.2701 is plain and unambiguous. … Clearly, as is evident from the execution of the deed, Frederick’s intent with respect to the disposition of the Mackinaw City property changed in 1996.

Mason v. City of Menominee

282 Mich. App. 525 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2009

Although Michigan precedent "has not defined an explicit set of elements necessary to satisfy the doctrine of acquiescence," caselaw has held that acquiescence is established when a preponderance of the evidence "establishes … Thus, a preponderance of the evidence shows that plaintiffs established acquiescence for the statutory 15-year period.

Brittnye Carlson v. Mesquite Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2017

asked to work on the night in question, the circumstances where a fight broke out and the scheduled bouncers were about to be outnumbered was just such an incident where the club needed his services and his stepping in qualified … For all of these reasons, I would conclude that it does not clearly appear that Bradley was acting outside the scope of his employment as a matter of law.

McDanield v. Hemker

268 Mich. App. 269 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2005

Moreover, the evidence, recited above, clearly establishes that McDanield suffered an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function. *281 Therefore, the statutory threshold has been satisfied with respect … This claimed impairment is continuing or ongoing and remains to discomfort McDanield following the injury; therefore, it qualifies as a “residual” impairment.

Trinity Henderson v. City of Melvindale

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2019

However, plaintiff clearly struggled with Officer Furman and ran over to the bumper guard of the police vehicle. … GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY Governmental immunity as to governmental employees is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof is on the employee. Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, 479; 760 NW2d 217 (2008).

Michelle a Mondak v. Taylor Police Department

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2017

Turning to the present facts, the City and the department were clearly entitled to the protections of governmental immunity set forth in MCL 691.1407(1), and the trial court erred by denying their motion for summary disposition … In this case, at the outset, we note that the individual officers are clearly entitled to the protections of governmental immunity with respect to plaintiff’s claims of ordinary negligence and strict liability as pleaded

Barbara Jean Bassett v. Wayne County

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2018

’ unless the plaintiff establishes the existence of a statutorily created exception to that immunity.”6 Odom, 482 Mich at 479; quoting MCL 691.1407(1). … Governmental employees possess qualified immunity for injuries they cause while they are acting within the scope of their employment “if they are acting or reasonably believe they are acting within the scope of their authority

People v. Burgess

153 Mich. App. 715 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 1986

You may consider whether the testimony was affected by the witness’ being granted immunity from punishment, receiving a promise of leniency or being allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense. … We believe that this evidence was sufficient to establish the aiding and abetting charge, thus subjecting defendant to punishment for first-degree murder.

People v. Ackah-Essien

311 Mich. App. 13 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2015

Thus, the trial court did not clearly err when it assessed 10 points for OV 14 and 15 points for OV 10. Hardy, 494 Mich at 438. … On this evidence, the trial court did not clearly err by assessing 10 points for OV 14. MCL 777.44(1)(a).