Case law

Vanerian v. Charles L Pugh Co, Inc

279 Mich. App. 431 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 2008

. *435 A person is a third-party beneficiary of a contract only when that contract establishes that a promisor has undertaken a promise directly to or for that person. … At best, the policy recognizes the possibility of some incidental benefit to members of the public at large, but such a class is too broad to qualify for third-party status under the statute. [ Schmalfeldt, supra at 429 (

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

Woody v. American Tank Company

49 Mich. App. 217 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 1973

If there were a category of injury greater than total and permanent disability he would qualify for it. … We think it is clearly a question of statutory interpretation and thus just as clearly a question of law.

People of Michigan v. Terence Mitchell Bruce

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 2017

In addition, the statute provides that, when a federal officer qualifies under the statute, the officer “has the privileges and immunities of a peace officer of this state.” MCL 764.15d(2). … The doctrine of entrapment by estoppel precludes prosecution if a defendant can establish the following elements: (1) that a government official advised the defendant that certain illegal conduct was legal,

Kevin Logan v. Charter Township of West Bloomfield

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2020

This Court and the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court, too, that the unjust enrichment claim was not barred by governmental immunity. Id. … The Court alternatively explained, “[U]njust enrichment claims based in equity [historically] involved remedies other than money judgments, including the establishment of constructive trusts, equitable liens, subrogation,

McClaine v. Alger

150 Mich. App. 306 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 1986

If the evidence, when viewed in this manner, establishes a prima facie case, we must reverse. … To the extent that the question called for an opinion, Jui, as plaintiff’s treating physician, was qualified by specialized knowledge to "assist the trier of fact to * * * determine a fact in issue”. MRE 702.

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

Michael McCall v. Wc Hockey LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2026

As for his tortious interference with a business expectancy claim, plaintiff contended that he presented evidence establishing all of the elements because he was clearly qualified to manage the arena where the Lumberjacks … According to plaintiff, Peterson believed that plaintiff was qualified for the role given plaintiff’s experience with the Lumberjacks.

Debra K Andreson v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2017

-7- and defendant has failed to otherwise establish that it was more probable than not that the alleged error was outcome determinative. … Therefore, the admissibility of the UIM policy limits clearly did not impact the settlement value of the case for purposes of the offers and counteroffers of judgment.

Chase Strickland v. State of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2017

’s sovereign immunity. … We review a trial court’s decision to dismiss a complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(8) “to determine whether the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify

20250221_C369042_75_369042.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2025

The grant of a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) is only appropriate “when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Id. … In that matter, the trial court ruled, and this Court affirmed, that Ashen failed to establish his claim of adverse possession related to property located at 246 Webster Avenue in South Haven.

Deanna Ray v. City of Lansing

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2018

In Willett, 271 Mich App at 47, the plaintiff argued that the defendant was not entitled to governmental immunity because the plaintiff had established the elements of MCL 691.1417(2). … Although MCL 691.1417(3) “clearly provides [plaintiffs’] a potential cause of action,” Bosanic v Motz Dev, Inc, 277 Mich App 277, 283; 745 NW2d 513 (2007), the sewage-disposal- system-event exception to governmental immunity

Desmond Washington v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2019

With respect to governmental immunity, plaintiff contended that Brothern’s testimony at least established a question of fact regarding the unidentified driver’s negligence. … There is clearly a question of fact as to the negligence of the driver who pulled out in front of Brothern.

Donald Ray Reid v. Thetford Township

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 25, 2017

Defendants asserted that plaintiff failed to plead in avoidance of governmental immunity and that no exception to immunity served to impose liability on them in this tort action. … Both the prosecutor and defense counsel indicated satisfaction with the plea, including the establishment of a factual basis for the same.

Donald Ray Reid v. Thetford Township

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 25, 2017

Defendants asserted that plaintiff failed to plead in avoidance of governmental immunity and that no exception to immunity served to impose liability on them in this tort action. … Both the prosecutor and defense counsel indicated satisfaction with the plea, including the establishment of a factual basis for the same.

Neal v. Department of Corrections

230 Mich. App. 202 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1998

disposition on the grounds that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, that the claims of some class members *251 were barred by release, prior judgment, or statute of limitations, that all defendants enjoyed immunity … Clearly, maintaining separate prison facilities for male and female prisoners serves important penological interests and is substantially related to those interests.

People v. Goree

132 Mich. App. 693 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1984

The challenged "bloodtyping” evidence consisted of the testimony of Glen Moore, a qualified crime laboratory technician. Mr. … Further, this was not a case where the prosecution could clearly establish or attempt to establish identity without the use of the disputed similar-acts evidence.

Morales v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

279 Mich. App. 720 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 2008

Veterans’ benefits are dependent on establishing a service-connected disability. … Brateman’s second letter to the VA on December 14, 2003, clearly notes that plaintiff received a closed head injury in the June 12, 2002, motor vehicle *738 accident.

Neuman v. Flint Civil Service Commission

35 Mich. App. 247 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 1971

The circuit judge’s findings of fact and opinion are, in part, as follows: “In the summer of 1967, 18 Detective Sergeants were qualified to take competitive civil service examinations to determine merit (fitness and efficiency … The examinations would also establish an eligibility list for later promotions in the next two years.

Robert Davis v. Secretary of State

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2023

At a minimum, the separate opinions by Justices Viviano and Welch suggest that defendant did not hold a clearly unreasonable belief that the challenged candidates’ AOIs were facially proper. … The plaintiff also bears the burden of establishing entitlement to declaratory relief. Gracey, 182 Mich App at 203.