Case law

Clark v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

268 Mich. App. 138 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2005

Furthermore, the Court in Rory clarified that public policy must be clearly rooted in the law. Id. at 471 , 703 N.W.2d 23 . … "Historically, courts have relied on the Legislature to establish limitation periods." Herweyer, supra at 23 , 564 N.W.2d 857 .

Estate of Steven Jacob Jahn v. William T Farnsworth

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 23, 2017

Even Jake’s father, who was at the school with Jake, saw no signs that Jake was extremely upset or was considering suicide otherwise Jake’s father clearly would not have allowed him to drive home alone. … Mary Spence and submitted in support of plaintiff’s federal district court case did not tend to establish plaintiff’s claim of gross negligence. In particular, Dr.

English v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich.

263 Mich. App. 449 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2004

Accordingly, although the specific IRO assigned to respondent’s case is not known to respondent until after the commissioner makes a decision, the act provides assurances that the IRO is qualified and disinterested. … Nothing in the record establishes otherwise. Thus, there is no record evidence that these documents are part of the contract between petitioner and respondent.

Elizabeth Cuevas v. the Board of Hospital Managers of Hurley Medic

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2017

“Generally, the governmental immunity act provides broad immunity from tort liability to governmental agencies, officials, or employees who exercise or discharge a governmental function.” … The assignment of office space, performance evaluation rating determinations, employee scheduling and discipline clearly comprise decisions that require “personal deliberation, decision and judgment.” Id.

20241206_C367518_34_367518C.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2024

In order to meet the requirements of 45 CFR 164.512(e)(1)(v), a QPO must clearly state that it “[p]rohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation or … Thus, a trial court cannot impose a condition on an ex parte interview unless good cause for the condition has been established. Szpak, 290 Mich at 714. Generalized concerns are insufficient to establish good cause.

Golf Concepts v. City of Rochester Hills

217 Mich. App. 21 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1996

Therefore, to qualify for the exemption, the golf course must be at a public park and must be used as a concession. … Nonetheless, the longstanding interpretation of a statute by the agency that administers it does not control where the agency’s interpretation is clearly wrong. Id.

Elizabeth Taylor v. University of Michigan Regents

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 2022

And it is well established that the state and its entities cannot be sued without legislative consent. … Thus, the Legislature has abrogated sovereign immunity for such claims sounding in medical malpractice.

Senate v. House of Representatives

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2025

A motion is properly granted pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) “when the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine question of fact.” Tripp, 346 Mich App at 262. … The provision clearly mandates that every passed bill “shall” be presented to the Governor.

People of Michigan v. Jerod Lyle Western

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2023

Because the prosecution in this case did not list the lieutenant as an expert or move to qualify her as one and the trial court never made a finding that the lieutenant was qualified as an expert, the trial court presumably … Moreover, in any event, defendant cannot establish prejudice because the lieutenant’s testimony would have been properly admitted under MRE 702.

Radtke v. Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone

209 Mich. App. 606 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1995

MCR 2.312(D)(1) provides that a matter admitted in response to a request for admissions is established conclusively. … First, MCR 2.312(D)(2) clearly does not apply to this appeal.

People of Michigan v. John Henry Lewis

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 5, 2026

The Court concluded that Copeland’s statements qualified as statements against his penal interest because, although the statements did not sufficiently establish every element of first-degree murder, they were “probative … But Barrera established that the statement “need not by itself prove the declarant guilty.” Id. at 270-271.

William Scott Kincaid v. City of Flint

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2024

In response, the City moved for summary disposition under the doctrines of laches, governmental immunity, res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case. … Our Supreme Court explained that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply “if the court is convinced that its prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Id. at 288.

Goodridge v. Ypsilanti Township Board

227 Mich. App. 156 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1997

In April 1986, petitioner conspired with members of the Ypsilanti Township Civil Service Commission (ytcsc) to falsify a fist of the most qualified applicants for four new firefighter positions. … Respondent [Goodridge] failed to investigate the situation or to report it to his superior, Ron AUen, or to any member of the Ypsilanti Township Board. *164 We feel that the testimony of Harold Owings and Lester Wallen clearly

Shannon Oehmke v. Citizens Insurance Company of America

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 2016

In this case, the parties clearly disputed the nature and extent of the injuries plaintiff received in the second accident at issue. … Plaintiff on appeal has not demonstrated that this ruling, essentially a factual determination, was clearly erroneous. Id.; MCR 2.613(C).

in Re Jsf Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2015

Johnson and the Catholic Charities supervisor decided that there was simply so much conflicting information from clearly biased sources that they needed a neutral third party. … Furthermore, such a conspiracy is not, strictly speaking, impossible: even though paranoid beliefs are frustratingly immune to facts, people suffering from paranoia are not immune from acquiring genuine enemies.

Natasha Atkinson v. City of Lansing

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2025

This requires a plaintiff to show that he or she was minimally qualified for the job. … See Wilcoxon v Minnesota Mining & Mfg Co, 235 Mich App 347, 369; 597 NW2d 250 (1999) (“Being qualified for a job, for purposes of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, requires only minimal qualification.”).

People of Michigan v. Dustin Lee MacLeod

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2016

Although such statements by a confidential informant to a police officer are testimonial, Chambers, 277 Mich App at 10, the record clearly shows that the statements were not offered to establish the truth of the matter stated … Clearly, defendant’s father was not a proper “registered primary caregiver” or “registered qualifying patient” entitled to have a key to the “enclosed, locked facility” under MCL 333.26423(d).

People of Michigan v. Andy James Brown

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 10, 2016

The issue whether the trial court erred in qualifying Gonyeau as an expert is preserved because the trial court qualified Gonyeau as an expert following a hearing on the admissibility of his testimony, see MCR 2.517(7), and … The prosecutor offered evidence of defendant’s 2004 conviction of embezzlement for the purpose of establishing defendant’s motive in killing Locey.

Lawrence a Nakfoor v. Our Savior Lutheran Church

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2018

Relying on these criteria, this Court has held that in order for a claimant to avoid governmental immunity under the SDSE exception, the claimant must establish the elements found in MCL 691.1417(3)(a) through (e). … perhaps the storm drain, as originally designed and constructed, was adequate to prevent flooding in the subdivision before the change in elevation, although the previously undeveloped property flooded, the elevation increase clearly

Lawrence a Nakfoor v. Our Savior Lutheran Church

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2018

Relying on these criteria, this Court has held that in order for a claimant to avoid governmental immunity under the SDSE exception, the claimant must establish the elements found in MCL 691.1417(3)(a) through (e). … perhaps the storm drain, as originally designed and constructed, was adequate to prevent flooding in the subdivision before the change in elevation, although the previously undeveloped property flooded, the elevation increase clearly