Case law

Marc S Throop v. Gull Lake Community Schools

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2017

to immunity for Rundle’s conduct. … In this case, plaintiff’s claims of gross negligence by the low-ranking officials at GLCS are clearly without merit.

William Lanzi v. Township of St Clair

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 23, 2017

Defendant further argued that plaintiffs had not plead or established that governmental immunity should be avoided under the sewage disposal system event exception. … Thus, the plaintiff could not establish that the defendant was not entitled to governmental immunity pursuant to MCL 691.1417. Id. at 55.

Jeanine D Smith v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 2, 2021

They additionally contended that they were immune from liability because Sullivan’s conduct did not amount to gross negligence as a matter of law and because the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity did not apply … Bleiberg’s affidavit clearly provided evidence that Smith suffered an injury arising out of the accident. His credibility is also for the jury to assess. Id.

City of Holland v. Consumers Energy Company

308 Mich. App. 675 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 2015

Clearly, Rule 411 was not intended to apply to municipal utilities such as Holland. … Consumers states that after Great Wolf Lodge , the Rule 411 definition of “customer” is the premises of the buildings and facilities that existed at the time service was established.

Kamal Nassar v. City of Dearborn

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2017

The applicability of governmental immunity and the statutory exceptions to immunity are also reviewed de novo on appeal. … , given the location of the grass and the nature of other features, established the fact that the location of the pothole at issue was not on part of the Paul St. highway overpass, which is the area that the city claimed

People v. Holloway

82 Mich. App. 629 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 1978

It is because the cloak of sovereign immunity is wrapped around law enforcement officials that the Fourth Amendment is applied to their actions (though today a somewhat ragged cloak). … This Court clearly analyzed the private security guard's actions as it would any other peace officer.

People of Michigan v. Nosakhare Onumonu

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2026

Even so, the trial court’s finding was clearly erroneous. … Thus the FOIA evidence does not qualify as newly discovered evidence under MCR 6.508(D) or Cress, nor is defendant able to establish that it constitutes a Brady violation.

Jeanine D Smith v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 2, 2021

They additionally contended that they were immune from liability because Sullivan’s conduct did not amount to gross negligence as a matter of law and because the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity did not apply … Bleiberg’s affidavit clearly provided evidence that Smith suffered an injury arising out of the accident. His credibility is also for the jury to assess. Id.

David Wells Jr v. Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2025

The trial court held that Auto Club failed to present evidence establishing the first two elements, and that is what the parties principally dispute on appeal—whether Auto Club’s evidence established that David Sr. made a … Those conditions include that the “applicant or named insured is a qualified person,” and MCL 500.3107d(7)(c) defines a qualified person as “a person who has qualified health coverage” as provided in MCL 500.3107d(7)(b)(ii

People v. Chavies

234 Mich. App. 274 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 19, 1999

Clearly, out-of-court statements offered for their truth are usually inadmissible hearsay. See MRE 801(c); MRE 802. However, MRE 801(d)(1)(A) provides that [a] statement is not hearsay if. .. … , “given strong indicia of reliability and an adequate foundation to establish admissibility.”

Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Peaker Services, Inc.

306 Mich. App. 178 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2014

The trial court did not clearly articulate the basis for its holding; rather, the court appeared to hold that the contractual-liability exclusion did not preclude coverage because “what we have - there’s potential tort liability … “While [i]t is the insured’s burden to establish that his claim falls within the terms of the policy, [t]he insurer should bear the burden of proving an absence of coverage.”

In re Estate of Stan

301 Mich. App. 435 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2013

The court further noted that it had heard no evidence to positively establish that Georgiann was unfit or unsuitable for the position of personal representative. … Christine’s objection to her sister’s appointment certainly qualified as a challenge to that provision of the decedent’s will that nominated Georgiana to serve as personal representative.

In Re H K Wilson-Lyle Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2025

The trial court did not clearly err in finding statutory grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i). … HL’s therapist, who was qualified as an expert in childhood development and therapy, testified that HL disclosed in sessions that respondent had touched her while she was asleep.

Estate of Charles R Round v. Trinidad Resort and Club LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2022

Relevant to this case is the immunity related to snow-making equipment. … Clearly, snow-making equipment that is located on a ski run and which extends more than 6 feet above the snow surface need not be marked.

People v. Sawyer

215 Mich. App. 183 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1996

Voir dire was not *188 "focused on qualifying jurors rather than on discerning bias.” Tyburski, supra at 627 . … Here, even if all of the information challenged by defendant were excluded, there was ample evidence to establish probable cause.

Rusnak v. Walker

273 Mich. App. 299 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2007

In Rusnak v Walker, 271 Mich App 567 ; 723 NW2d 210 (2006), a panel of this Court held that the individual defendant, Walker, was immune from suit under the SASA as interpreted by Kent v Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc, 240 Mich … With these (and other inapplicable) duties established, the Legislature then addressed the liabilities for, *304 and the risks assumed by, skiers.

Ingham County v. Capitol City Lodge No 141 of the Fraternal Order of Police, Labor Program, Inc

275 Mich. App. 133 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2007

According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to qualify as a protected activity, “it must appear at the very least that it was engaged in with the object of initiating or inducing or preparing for … The union stresses that the memorandum clearly and directly addressed a simple and routine working condition.

Robert Davis v. Janice Winfrey

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2025

When the Legislature has specifically required that the candidate provide more, it clearly has said as much. … Clearly, “name” and “full former name” have different meanings for purposes of the statute.

Violet Lapeer v. Otsego County Fair Association

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 6, 2021

A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) is properly granted when, considering only the pleadings, the alleged claims are clearly unenforceable as a matter of law and no factual development could justify recovery … To that end, the EALA grants broad immunity from tort liability to an equine activity sponsor, as defined in the act.

People of Michigan v. Kenneth Legrant Hawkins

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2022

[(b) The evidence clearly shows that (name witness) is guilty of the same crime the defendant is charged with.] … Because the trial court gave M Crim JI 5.13, its failure to also give M Crim JI 5.4 and 5.6 does not qualify as plain error.