Case law

Sloan v. Silberstein

2 Mich. App. 660 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1966

Rock was appointed and qualified successor trustee. … appellees and cross-appellants, contend that the trial court erred in determining the measure of liability of the appellant on the basis of 5,000 shares of stock of the National Building Corporation and that the testimony clearly

in Re King Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2015

A decision qualifies as clearly erroneous when, “although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” … The evidence that clearly and convincingly established the propriety of terminating respondent mother’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (c)(ii) likewise clearly and convincingly established respondent mother

People v. Tanner

255 Mich. App. 369 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 6, 2003

Stephan Cohle, who was qualified as a forensic pathologist, the victim suffered both “blunt force injury” and “sharp force injury.” … Moreover, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the delay in this case resulted from the police conducting further investigation and because the prosecutors were simply not satisfied that the evidence was sufficient

Midland Township v. State Boundary Commission

64 Mich. App. 700 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 1975

Act 219 clearly assigned additional functions, duties and procedures to the SBC. … of Commissioners is clearly exercising a legislative, rather than a judicial function.

Nick Yono v. County of Ingham

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2023

Summary disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(7) if the defendant is entitled to “immunity granted by law.” … However, plaintiff’s affidavit fails to establish that these items of personal property were actually on the land or that defendants were in possession of said property.

People of Michigan v. Robert Michael Freebold

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 2025

or facility used by the qualified personnel for the examination, and the sheriff shall return the defendant to the jail upon completion of the examination … defendant had chosen to walk out, regardless of whether he had been told that it was the correct type of examination, and on appeal defendant does not explain how this would render the court’s finding that he did not cooperate clearly

Michigan Association of Home Builders v. City of Troy

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2024

Judge Cohen clearly erred by relying on this speculation. There was no evidence that the fees paid by MAHB’s members were passed on to homeowners. … It unambiguously grants standing to taxpayers and does not refer to qualified electors.

In Re RFF

242 Mich. App. 188 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2000

This language does not clearly address the situation presented in this case. At best, the language may be susceptible to multiple meanings. … [T]he court, therefore, finds that we can't make the leap that he's a Section 2 father because there was no support, and for whatever reason, I don't believe he qualifies under Section 2.

Od Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Govt v. State of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2022

public school academy, there is allocated under this section to the authorizing body that is the fiscal agent for the qualifying public school academy for forwarding to the qualifying public school academy … It clearly has ministerial duties8 under MCL 21.241 and 21.235.

Ali Mazloum v. Michael Bemis

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2018

First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. at 463. … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, plaintiff had to show that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was subject to an adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified for his position; and (4) he

In Re Application of Consumers Energy Co for Reconciliation

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2024

“To establish that a PSC order is unlawful, the appellant must show that the PSC failed to follow a statutory requirement or abused its discretion in the exercise of its judgment.” … “If the language of the statute is unambiguous, the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written.”

Kasberg v. Ypsilanti Township

287 Mich. App. 563 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2010

I would hold that the Tax Tribunal properly concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to determine whether petitioner qualified for the exemption or to grant relief on the basis of an interpretation of MCL 125.1415a. … These and many other purposes set forth in MCL 125.1401 clearly establish that the State Housing Development Authority Act arises not from the tax laws of this state, but from “the state’s police power as part of the government

People v. Parker

84 Mich. App. 447 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 1978

After defendant requested an attorney, having been advised of his rights under the marijuana charge, the record establishes that there was absolutely no interrogation about the marijuana charge. … As in Hodge [487 F2d 945 (CA 5, 1973)] and Davis [527 F2d 1110 (CA 9, 1975)], the questioning did not really begin until Pheaster had clearly indicated his willingness to cooperate.

Walgreen Co. v. MacOmb Township

280 Mich. App. 58 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2008

Accordingly, even if petitioner's lease agreement qualifies as a "transfer of ownership" under MCL 211.27a(6)(g), it does did not establish petitioner's standing pursuant to MCL 211.30. … Under this standard, petitioner clearly has an "injury in fact," as it is the one responsible for paying the taxes at issue.

Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v. Public Service Commission

285 Mich. App. 26 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2009

However, the circuit court in turn held that it “need not address what a utility is in the context of Rule 411(2) of the administrative code since subrule 11 clearly sets forth Cherryland’s entitlement.” … The question then remains whether, under these facts, there were buildings or facilities on the site in question that qualified as “existing customers” of Cherryland when Great Wolf acquired the site.

People of Michigan v. Lamarr Valdez Robinson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2015

Accordingly, we conclude that the prosecutor’s remarks were not clearly improper. … Consequently, the prosecutor’s remark was not clearly improper.

Ali Mazloum v. Michael Bemis

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2018

First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. at 463. … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, plaintiff had to show that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was subject to an adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified for his position; and (4) he

Sington v. Chrysler Corp.

245 Mich. App. 535 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2001

Whether a particular job offer qualifies as “reasonable employment” is ordinarily a question of fact. … Where that language in unambiguous, we presume that the Legislature intended the meaning clearly expressed — no further judicial construction is required or permitted, and the statute must be enforced as written.

In Re M a Tye Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2023

A trial court must find that at least one statutory ground for termination has been established by clear and convincing evidence in order to terminate a respondent’s parental rights. … “A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, giving due regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to observe the witnesses.”

Nomads, Inc v. City of Romulus

154 Mich. App. 46 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 1986

Testimony at trial established that petitioner owns and operates a Boeing 727 aircraft used by club members. Members organize trips to places not serviced by regular commercial flights, or serviced indirectly. … The qualifying language is not an exemption; rather it defines the taxpayers on whom the lessee-user tax is imposed, i.e., lessees of tax-exempt property used in connection with businesses conducted for profit.