Case law

West Central Packing Inc. v. a F Murch Co.

109 Mich. App. 493 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 1981

The documents themselves did not establish unequivocally a con *502 tract for the sale of goods. The sufficiency of defendant’s signature was also open to question. … The UCC makes no mention of this equitable principle, and the code’s official commentary clearly indicates that this doctrine is no longer the law with regard to the sale of goods.

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.

Mark Stieve v. City of Dearborn

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2017

The evidence establishes that Bowen travelled in the left lane of the median-divided residential street. … Here, Bowen clearly owed a duty to innocent bystanders and other persons using the highways.

Hastings Mutual Insurance Company v. Grange Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 16, 2017

In the present case, the parties dispute whether vehicle repairs performed by a salaried employee of Williams Farms, a business whose primary purpose is farming, qualifies under the course-of-business exception in MCL 500.3121 … A decision is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. [Citations and quotation marks omitted.

County of Ingham v. Mi County Road Commission Self-Insurance Pool

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2019

Clearly, the law-of-the-case doctrine has no usefulness if it is only applied when a panel of this Court agrees with the decision reached by a prior panel. [Bennett, 197 Mich App at 500.] … We conclude that the refund overview does not qualify as such a rule or regulation, at least for purposes of summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).

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.

Kyle J Bowles v. Renee Repkie

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2025

-4-  Regarding qualified privilege, this Court in Smith v Fergen, 181 Mich App 594, 596-597; 450 NW2d 3 (1989),4 stated: The elements of qualified privilege … This finding was not clearly erroneous. Bowles contends that the trial court should have granted her various costs.

People v. Fyda

288 Mich. App. 446 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 18, 2010

erroneous standard. 28 The findings are clearly erroneous if this Court is left with a firm conviction that a mistake was made. 29 B. … People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 216 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000) (stating that defense counsel’s failure to object qualifies as a forfeiture). People v Brown, 267 Mich App 141, 152 ; 703 NW2d 230 (2005).

Innovative Adult Foster Care, Inc v. Ragin

285 Mich. App. 466 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 2009

The articles of incorporation clearly state that Innovative AFC’s original four incorporators were Gene Harris, Rene Harris, John Ragin, and Mary Ragin. … directors,’ ” (2) that “[t]he first board of directors shall consist of persons named as the initial [incorporators] in the certificate of incorporation and shall hold office . . . until their successors have been elected and qualified

People v. Iaconis

29 Mich. App. 443 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 1971

The control of narcotics forbidden by the act without qualifying language, is broad enough to include any right to direct disposition of narcotics exercisable by any person, whether or not the owner of the narcotics.” … We agree with the defendant’s contention that a waiver of the important right to be tried by a jury first impaneled should not be assumed, but should clearly appear on the record.

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.

in Re Miller Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2016

The trial court did not clearly err in finding that MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) was established by clear and convincing evidence. … Murphy /s/ Amy Ronayne Krause 3 Assuming that a parent qualifies as a “relative” for purposes of MCL 712A.19a(6)(a), necessitating explicit consideration

Alliance for the Mentally Ill v. Department of Community Health

231 Mich. App. 647 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 1998

A trial court’s findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly errone *657 ous. MCR 2.613(C). 6 See also Ornelas v United States, 517 US 690 ; 116 S Ct 1657 ; 134 L Ed 2d 911 (1996). … The definition does not distinguish, however, the public or private nature of the organization or establishment itself.

People v. Stephan

241 Mich. App. 482 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 2000

On the other hand, the GBMI verdict statute allows the jury to find that a defendant suffered from a mental illness that did not qualify as legal insanity. … Clearly, the insanity defense and GBMI verdict statutes should be read as in pari materia.

In re Forfeiture of 1987 Mercury

252 Mich. App. 533 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2002

Where the language is unambiguous, “we presume that the Legislature intended the meaning clearly expressed—no fur *539 ther judicial construction is required or permitted, and the statute must be enforced as -written.” … that law enforcement may have possessed probable cause to believe that claimants’ vehicles were subject to seizure. 2 Furthermore, we do not find persuasive the prosecutor’s references to the unfairness that a grant of immunity

Cain v. Waste Management, Inc

259 Mich. App. 350 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2004

According to plaintiff, it is "as simple as adding one plus one to get the two qualifying losses." … Plaintiff concedes the seeming inconsistency in finding that a claimant who cannot qualify for total and permanent disability benefits for the loss of industrial use of both legs under the "corrected" test may qualify for

20231109_C362919_66_362919C.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2023

-1- defendant’s sentencing, did not qualify as a “firearm.” … Defendant called one witness, Steve Howard, who was qualified as an expert in firearm identification.

Dillon v. Secretary of State

61 Mich. App. 588 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1975

Plaintiffs cite a New York Memorandum Opinion, Morisi v Motor Vehicle Accident Indem Corp, 19 AD2d 727 (1963) which holds that a husband of an injured person is a 'qualified person’ to sue for loss of services under the New … "While this Court is aware that when applying insurance law to the Fund, that the purpose of the two are not the same, the fact remains that the Legislature used the words 'injury’ and 'personal injury’ which seems clearly

Michigan Farm Bureau v. Department of Environmental Quality

292 Mich. App. 106 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2011

These initial regulations, “very generally speaking, defined the types of animal feeding operations that qualify as CAFOs, set forth various NPDES permit requirements, and established effluent limitation guidelines for CAFOs … The term “this part” in § 3103(2) clearly means Part 31 of the NREPA, which confers several “duties” upon the DEQ.

Gina K Hensley v. Botsford General Hospital

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2016

Plaintiff’s e-mail to Bone also fails to qualify as a “charge” under the CRA. … 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.