Case law

Kochoian v. Allstate Insurance

168 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 1988

In the present case, the facts reveal that plaintiff’s parentage, habits and preexisting physical condition clearly predisposed him to the heart attack which occurred almost three months after his truck accident. … This Court, in reviewing a trial court’s denial of such a motion, affords deference to that denial because the lower court heard the witnesses and thus was uniquely qualified to assess their credibility.

People v. Lawson

56 Mich. App. 100 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 1974

Unfortunately, the opinion in Wilson does not clearly indicate whether that inquiry is reversible error under every set of surrounding circumstances. … Nor can we say that in this case the trial court qualified its instruction sufficiently to ameliorate any coercive effect.

People of Michigan v. Gary Edward Storie

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 29, 2018

Nothing would have prevented the prosecution from giving immunity to the two witnesses for a conspiracy in the same manner in which the prosecution immunized them at trial. … This finding is not clearly erroneous.

People of Michigan v. Gary Edward Storie

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 29, 2018

Nothing would have prevented the prosecution from giving immunity to the two witnesses for a conspiracy in the same manner in which the prosecution immunized them at trial. … This finding is not clearly erroneous.

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.

People v. Martin

271 Mich. App. 280 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2006

In order to qualify under the exclusion for statements by a coconspirator, the proponent of the statements must establish three things. … The evidence at trial clearly established that prostitution occurred at Legg’s Lounge.

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.

People of Michigan v. Philip John Ferrier

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 12, 2015

In addition, defendant’s expert witness testified that defendant engaged in repetitive incidents of sexual misconduct that were “clearly against” the rights of the women involved. … In sum, the prosecution’s expert was qualified to provide expert testimony.

in Re Pedrick Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2019

After the close of proofs, the trial court found that jurisdiction had been established. … Indeed, both of those elements are clearly met.

Davis v. City of Detroit Financial Review Team

296 Mich. App. 568 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 21, 2012

UTILIZING THE SERVICES OF OTHER STATE AGENCIES AND EMPLOYEES A financial review team is also empowered under § 13 to utilize the services of other state agencies and employees. 102 While this language rather clearly establishes … Rather clearly, however, the Legislature anticipated such a circumstance.

Mull v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

196 Mich. App. 411 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1992

Ramik confirmed that Koss was in charge of the wreath-hanging operation and stated that Koss was a "qualified operator.” … On appeal, jury instructions are reviewed in their entirety, rather than extracted piecemeal to establish error in isolated portions.

Kizer v Livingston County Board of Commissioners

38 Mich. App. 239 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 1972

Such an argument would clearly be absurd, since it is obvious that the words, “on or before May 15, 1967”, were obsolete at the time of first amendment. … The apportionment act established a sophisticated, progressive, comprehensive mechanism designed to eliminate the archaic apportioning procedures then extant.

Michigan Ass'n of Chiropractors v. Blue Cross Blue Shield

300 Mich. App. 551 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2013

Thus, it is evident that to determine defendant’s liability, highly individualized inquiries regarding the circumstances relevant to each claim clearly predominate over the more broadly stated common question in this case … The third element is the only one of the three that might be established by common proofs.

People v. Brooks

293 Mich. App. 525 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2011

Clearly, “ ‘the more searching the inquiry at this stage the more likely it is that any decision on the part of the defendant is going to be truly voluntary ....’” … It is well established that a court may consider a defendant’s past criminal history and failures at rehabilitation as objective and verifiable factors establishing “a firm probability of future” criminal activity.

Meghan Marie Kuebler v. Paul Andrew Kuebler

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 11, 2023

To the contrary, the evidence clearly preponderates against the trial court’s conclusion in this regard. … Defendant has not, however, demonstrated that the GAL was so clearly biased against him as to necessitate her removal.

People of Michigan v. Anthony Lamar Bonner

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2025

Here, defendant asserts that Cottrell was not qualified to furnish expert testimony, and that the expert testimony from Cottrell crossed several lines established by MRE 702 and a pretrial order. … Thus, the jury was clearly made aware that earlier proceedings of some sort had taken place.

Li Yun Yee v. Aaa Insurance

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2022

It is the insured’s burden to establish that his claim falls within the terms of the policy.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). … in the fourth paragraph, the fifth paragraph explicitly and clearly modifies the definition to exclude such vehicles from the definition.

William Bailey v. County of Antrim

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2022

A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may only be granted when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify recovery. … See Barrow, 290 Mich App at 542 (in order to establish a quo warranto claim, a plaintiff must establish that the purported fraud or error “might have affected the outcome of the election”).

Giorgio Webster v. Dr Jeffrey Osguthorpe

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2023

Steven Wolf, failed to establish that he was familiar with the applicable standard of care and did not establish the source of his knowledge of the applicable standard of care. Defendants further argued that Dr. … The second witness was not qualified as an expert “and was never asked about the standard of care applicable to emergency room treatment of seizure patients.” Id.

Donaldson v. ALCONA CTY. BD., RD. COMM'RS

219 Mich. App. 718 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 1997

In so doing, the road commission's actions would clearly have encouraged and facilitated public use of the roadway to the diminishment of adjoining landowners' rights *236 to restrict public use of the roadway and peacefully … A In order to qualify as being "open, notorious, and exclusive," the public use must be of a sufficient magnitude to place "the owner on notice that his title was being denied." Maghielse v. Crawford Co.