Case law

Detroit Downtown Development Authority v. Lotus Industries LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 2021

lacked immunity for non-tort claims. … The trial court’s findings in this regard were not clearly erroneous.

National Wildlife Federation v. Department of Environmental Quality

306 Mich. App. 369 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2014

“This latter standard is indistinguishable from the clearly erroneous standard .... … Section 3106 states that “[t]he department shall establish pollution standards for lakes, rivers, streams, and other waters of the state . . .

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.

People v. Brownridge

225 Mich. App. 291 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1997

A pathologist established the cause of death as drowning. … The declaration must be against one’s pecuniary interest at the time the statement is made or it fails to qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule.” Id. at 196 (emphasis added).

William a Roye Jr v. Paul R Ehrmann Do

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2015

Plaintiff opposed defendants’ motion asserting that the evidence clearly established that Dr. Hulesch was qualified to offer an expert opinion regarding causation. … It indicates that enlarging or symptomatic lesions that are not clearly benign should be excised or biopsied to determine appropriate treatment.

People v. Martin

59 Mich. App. 471 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1975

If sections 308 and 309 are read together, it quite clearly appears that the "[a]ll final judgments” of section 308 is a general residuary source of jurisdiction. … "And you’ve got to have a record that establishes each of those elements.

People of Michigan v. Donald Ray Ferguson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2016

The trial court denied the Fergusons’ motion to suppress the evidence, concluding that the Fergusons were not entitled to MMMA immunity. … A defendant may establish an entrapment defense in one of two ways: “(1) the police engaged in impermissible conduct that would induce a law-abiding person to commit a crime in similar circumstances or (2) the police engaged

Jesperson v. Auto Club Insurance

306 Mich. App. 632 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 2014

The statute begins by establishing a general rule that an action for first-party personal protection insurance *642 benefits “may not be commenced later than 1 year after the date of the accident causing the injury . . . … The two exceptions in MCL 500.3145(1) to its one-year limitations period are clearly separated by the word “or.” The word “or” is a disjunctive term indicating a choice between alternatives.

Ryan Menard v. Terry R Imig

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 2018

Clearly, from those answers, Imig has established that the condition of the road did not hinder his ability to stop. … From the record, clearly Ryan’s injuries were not “a foreseeable, natural, and probable” result of the Macomb defendants’ failure to properly maintain the width of Hipp Road. See id.

in Re Brown Estate

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2015

While the quitclaim deed clearly diminishes the amount of property subject to distribution according to its terms, the trust itself was not modified. … Second, our Supreme Court, in discussing the elements necessary to establish a presumption of undue influence clearly states that for the presumption to be “brought to life,” i.e., to apply, evidence must be introduced that

Whittaker & Gooding Co v. Scio Township

122 Mich. App. 538 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1983

Plaintiff argues that the distinction in meaningless since, under the holding in Room & Board, once a use qualifies as a special exception, the use cannot be subject to a time limitation. … These considerations were clearly at the heart of Chairman Jebe’s proposal that the permit end after five years. Again we refer to the minutes of the December 9, 1976, meeting: *552 "Mr.

DeBrabant v. Roadway Express, Inc.

138 Mich. App. 286 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 1984

This Court cannot overturn this finding of fact unless it is clearly erroneous. GCR 1963, 517.1; C Thorrez Ind, Inc v Civil Rights Comm, 88 Mich App 704, 707 ; 278 NW2d 725 (1979). … Accordingly, the policy is contrary to the Elliott-Larsen act, "unless the classification can qualify as a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of [defendants’] business”.

Jenaa Grier v. Sharon McClure

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 2023

“Importantly, a tort action against a governmental entity generally raises two issues: (1) whether the plaintiff has pleaded in avoidance of governmental immunity, and (2) whether the plaintiff can establish the elements … Because plaintiff has only alleged ordinary negligence, the individual defendants would be entitled to immunity from the claim. Id.

In Re Paris Academy

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2024

The [above] clearly outlines the standard of care owed by a court-appointed receiver as one of good faith. … In the governmental-immunity context, involved a receiver’s exercise of discretion and business judgment, published Michigan cases do not so clearly require a showing of bad faith in every situation,

Begin v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.

284 Mich. App. 581 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2009

After further colloquy between the trial court and counsel, the court stated to defense counsel: But let me say this as clearly as I hope it can be communicated to Mr. … The motion is properly granted when the undisputed facts establish that the moving party is entitled to immunity granted by law. By Lo Oil Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 267 Mich App 19, 26 ; 703 NW2d 822 (2005).

Ryan Menard v. Terry R Imig

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 2018

Clearly, from those answers, Imig has established that the condition of the road did not hinder his ability to stop. … From the record, clearly Ryan’s injuries were not “a foreseeable, natural, and probable” result of the Macomb defendants’ failure to properly maintain the width of Hipp Road. See id.

Julie a Bolen v. Marada Industries Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2021

However, this Court is concurrently bound to follow decisions from the Michigan Supreme Court unless and until those decisions have clearly been overruled or superseded. … However, we disagree. 2 We note that Robinson dealt with the grant of governmental immunity in MCL 691.1407(1), and that the exceptions to that immunity are to be narrowly construed. Robinson, 462 Mich at 455.

in Re K O Schaffer Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2015

The child’s best interests clearly favored the continuation of this already established familial relationship, and termination was necessary to provide the child with this continued stability and the permanency and finality … See In re Colon, 144 Mich App 805, 814; 377 NW2d 321 (1985) (eight to 11 visits in 2-1/2 years did not qualify as regular and substantial visitation).

People of Michigan v. Anthony Ray McFarlane Jr

325 Mich. App. 507 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2018

Further, it does not matter that the finder of fact must make multiple inferences to establish these elements. … The trial court clearly erred to the extent that it relied on the evidence of a leg fracture in scoring this variable.

In Re Guardianship of Lucas Moreales Velasquez

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2022

(2) Upon hearing, if the court finds that a qualified person seeks appointment, venue is proper, the required notices have been given, the requirements of section 5204 or of sections 5205 and … Whether using the child custody factors, adoption factors, or a combination of factors, the record clearly established a finding that LMV’s best interests were served by remaining in the United States with appellant instead