Case law

People v. Gilmore

454 Mich. 442 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1997

codefendant, or accomplice, even if that person is not a prospective witness at trial; (4) any affidavit, warrant, and return pertaining to a search or seizure in connection with the case; and (5) any plea agreement, grant of immunity … We review trial court factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard. People v. Swirles (After Remand), 218 Mich.App. 133, 136 , 553 N.W.2d 357 (1996). We review constitutional questions of law de novo. People v.

Van Buren Charter Township v. Visteon Corporation

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 16, 2017

However, plaintiff is mistaken when it concludes that the fact of damages has been conclusively established. … Here, the trial court did not “find” any facts not clearly contained within the parties’ attachments to the pleadings.

Banish v. City of Hamtramck

9 Mich. App. 381 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 1968

, or the chief of the respective department, of the employee’s “conduct of work perform *390 anee” is required for longevity pay, the only record evidence is that a substantial number of employees whose years of service qualified … Upon rejection of the August 24, 1964, petition, any further request for payment by those who did not join in that petition clearly would have been futile.

O Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Govt v. State of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2022

We think that a community college district comes clearly within the plain meaning of the term “political subdivision”. … in order to be a qualified voter.

People v. Wilcox

183 Mich. App. 616 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 1990

I would hold that, under these circumstances, the court clearly erred by granting the dismissal. … (b) A final judgment or order of a court or tribunal from which appeal of right has been established by law.

Pine Bluffs Area Property Owners Ass'n v. DeWitt Landing & Dock Ass'n

287 Mich. App. 690 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 2010

The trial court’s conclusion to the contrary was clearly erroneous. … Accordingly, the trial court’s determination that Moore’s testimony established that the 20-foot strip was used as a road or path to the water is clearly erroneous.

Barrett v. Kirtland Community College

245 Mich. App. 306 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2001

See Mitan v Neiman Marcus, 240 Mich App 679, 682 ; 613 NW2d 415 (2000) (holding complaints amounting to generic claims of “job discrimination” did not qualify as a charge made under the Persons with Disabilities Act, MCL … The employee’s charge must clearly convey to an objective employer that the employee is raising the specter of a claim of unlawful discrimination pursuant to the CRA.

Christopher Holcomb v. Gwt Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 2016

As described in relation to a public nuisance claim against the government in avoidance of governmental immunity: This is not to say that any interference with public safety is sufficient to establish … Clearly, the public nuisance exception is not so broad. The limitations on the exception are clearly expressed in the Restatement: the interference must be unreasonable. [Id. at 6-7.]

In Re Mark T.

8 Mich. App. 122 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 1967

The procedures established in the adoption statute are' not ends in themselves. … . ^ In this case a viable familial relationship had been established.

Logan Schaub v. James Albert Seyler

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 2018

THE MOTOR VEHICLE EXCEPTION TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY Herman and TCAPS next argue that plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the bus was “operating” as a motor vehicle sufficient … to invoke the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity.

County of Oakland v. State of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2018

The MIDC had no authority over who becomes a licensed attorney; the act merely addressed a county-controlled system to ascertain indigency and provide qualified attorneys to indigent defendants. … “Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and we have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.”

Timothy L Johnson v. Public School Employees Retirement System

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 2016

-5- later failed to qualify for retiree health care benefits. MCL 38.1391a(8). … Further many courts have held that impairments of government employee contracts by the state that have indefinite application clearly violate the Contract Clause.

Estate of Lamarr Green v. Bashar Yaldo Md

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 25, 2023

Because [the defendant resident] clearly meets Woodard’s definition of “specialist,” he does not fall under MCL 600.2169(1)(c), but rather MCL 600.2169(1)(a). … Nirgiotis similarly was not qualified to testify regarding that specialty. Dr.

20241119_C367418_23_367418.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2024

He stated that his immune system was compromised and that, over time, he learned that he was “more likely to die from viruses.” … Those findings are not clearly erroneous. On this record, McKerchie cannot establish the elements of duress in breaking prison under MCL 768.21b(4).

Nosakhare N Onumonu v. Peter J Ellenson Pc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 2025

A (C)(8) motion is properly granted “when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 160. III. … Accepting this allegation as true, it establishes that defendant was not acting in concert with the prosecutor with the intent of accomplishing an unlawful purpose, and was thus not part of a conspiracy.

People v. Whitney

228 Mich. App. 230 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 22, 1998

Not to say you don’t have qualified people here in your own home town that can do the job. … However, we conclude that Michigan law clearly provides that no degree of recklessness or even deliberate ignorance suffices to establish the intent necessary to establish a specific intent crime.

Trinova Corp. v. Department of Treasury

166 Mich. App. 656 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 1988

[MCL 208.69(3); MSA 7.558(69)(3).[ 4 ] The department argues that § 69, as amended, is retroactive and that, given the requirements of the amendment, Trinova does not qualify for § 69 relief. … Clearly, the Legislature intended that 1987 PA 39 have retroactive effect.

Mi Electric Transmission Co LLC v. Mi Public Power Agency

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2025

In a second affidavit, Taylor countered that the LRTP clearly provided that the Oneida Lines would connect with the new Duck Lake Substation. … Because you would have yet to know whether you qualify by interconnecting with something that isn’t in the plan and has yet to be built.

Estate of James Thomas Bush v. City of St Clair Shores

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 2019

The trial court properly grants a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) when the undisputed facts establish that the moving party is entitled to immunity granted by law. … The evidence established a question of fact whether Murphy began his left-hand turn either without properly checking for oncoming vehicles, or without being able to clearly ascertain if the pathway was clear.

Drake v. Norge Division, Borg-Warner Corp.

48 Mich. App. 88 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 1973

That he, perhaps less fortunately than Paulson, is subjected to the disabling phenomenon by causes other than the use of his legs is hardly a good reason for depriving him of compensation which clearly would be payable if … Obviously there are many severely injured employees who would not qualify under those provisions.