Case law

In re Carroll

292 Mich. App. 395 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2011

Nevertheless, the Heinz Court clearly concluded that the term “care,” as used in MCL 500.3107(l)(a), was not restricted to medical care alone. … While a guardianship would qualify as a service for a person’s care, a closer question is whether the service of managing property and business affairs is care.

People v. Masroor

313 Mich. App. 358 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 2015

Although the trial court should have evaluated the other-acts evidence under MRE 403, this error was harmless as the evidence qualified as admissible. … Accordingly, we conclude that defendant has failed to establish either deficient performance or prejudice. *370 rv We turn, to defendant’s sentences.

People v. Olary

10 Mich. App. 640 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1968

His testimony established beyond peradventure that his animals were beaten, but, according to him, the beating was done by others. … *644 If there is a second question, it would be whether the record before us sustains the conviction, and it clearly does. Affirmed. McGREGOR, P.J., concurred with QUINN, J. LEVIN, J. ( dissenting ).

Robin Mitchell v. City of Lathrup Village

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2018

It also argued that Mitchell had failed to establish that the Village had notice of the alleged defect. … Lathrup Village next argues that Mitchell cannot establish that it had the 30-day notice of the defect required by MCL 691.1402a(2).

In Re E Hitz Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2023

“Only one statutory ground need be established by clear and convincing evidence to terminate a respondent’s parental rights, even if the court erroneously found sufficient evidence under other statutory grounds.” … Furthermore, EH’s therapist, who was ultimately qualified as an expert, testified it would be harmful for EH to remain in respondent’s care, and it was likely she would suffer additional abuse in the future if returned to

Kapsokavathis Plc v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 2025

Plaintiff initially requested a jury instruction that more clearly described that aggravated injuries qualify for recovery under the no-fault act. … The proposed instruction clearly conveyed that such aggravation or exacerbation qualifies under the law.

Therapy First LLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2015

A decision is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court is left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake was made by the lower court. … However, the findings must be able to survive review under the -2-  clearly-erroneous standard.

People of Michigan v. David Lavale Hairston

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 2015

Defendant’s convictions arise from the death of a six-year-old girl, AJ, the daughter of defendant’s friend, April Foster.1 The evidence at trial established that defendant and Foster subjected AJ and her sister to long term … In this case, any objection by defense counsel to the expert testimony in question would clearly have been futile because such testimony was properly admitted under MRE 702 and was not objectionable merely because it embraced

Harlan Vermilya v. Delta College Board of Trustees

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2022

On appeal, the parties disputed whether this Court should review the verdict de novo or under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. at 711. … It was an affirmative defense in that case because the defendant admitted performing the acts alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint, but invoked the immunity provision of the UAGA.

People v. Kemp

202 Mich. App. 318 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 1993

To establish the crime of second-degree murder, it must be determined that the defendant caused the death of the victim and that the killing was done with malice and without justification. … Imperfect self-defense is a qualified defense that can mitigate second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter. People v Butler, 193 Mich App 63, 67 ; 483 NW2d 430 (1992).

Ferency v. Secretary of State

190 Mich. App. 398 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 1991

Plaintiff filed his complaint in circuit court, seeking to have declared unconstitutional 1988 PA 275 , which establishes a closed presidential primary. … I urge you to vote no on this, first of all because the case for it, even as a legislative matter, has not been clearly established here on this convention floor; and secondly, because in any event, it is not a matter which

Sventko v. Kroger Co.

69 Mich. App. 644 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 1976

But much of the abuse may be avoided if, at the time of discharge, the employer sets forth reasons clearly establishing that no attempt was made to dissuade the injured employee from filing a claim *651 and that the reasons … I recognize that statutes will not be extended by implication to abrogate established rules of common law.

People v. Aceval

282 Mich. App. 379 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 7, 2009

It goes without saying that it is not necessary to conduct a double jeopardy inquiry to establish a due process violation. … "A citizen's right to due process in state court, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, includes the immunity from double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment."

Golden Rockies Inc v. City of Utica

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2023

Although the record does not clearly establish that plaintiff was involved in submitting the initiative petition, the record unequivocally establishes that Aiello and Geyer were both actively involved in working with the … In sum, the record clearly establishes that Aiello and Geyer were aware that the ordinance that was submitted to and approved by the city council differed from the ordinance as presented in the initiative petition.

Lawrence Washington Jr v. Governor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2019

[MCL 691.1407(2)] In order to assert a viable claim against a governmental agency, a plaintiff must plead facts establishing that an exception to governmental immunity applies to his or her claim. … Clearly, then, plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their homes was affected on April 25, 2104, and apparent to them within days of that date.

People v. Willing

267 Mich. App. 208 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2005

also clearly sought either the appointment of another trial counsel or an adjournment to enable him to retain another attorney. … As the Taylor court explained: Given the limited role that a standby attorney plays, we think it clear that the assistance of standby counsel, no matter how useful to the court or the defendant, cannot qualify as the assistance

Nippa v. Botsford General Hospital

251 Mich. App. 664 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2002

The rules of statutory construction are well established. The foremost rule, and [this Court’s] primary task in construing a statute, is to discern and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. … 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. No further judicial construction is required or permitted.

in Re Amy Lynn Willis

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 2021

“A probate court’s finding is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, even if there is evidence to support the finding.” Id. … O’Brien 2 Although the hearing transcript identifies the person as “Card,” this presumably refers to the person identified as “Karl” in the petition. 3 Because an individual need only qualify as a person requiring

Department of Environmental Quality v. Waterous Co

279 Mich. App. 346 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2008

STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court may only set aside a trial court’s findings of fact if those findings are clearly erroneous. 10 This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s conclusions of law. 11 And this Court reviews for an … (e) Other land use based categories established by the department.

People v. Beydoun

283 Mich. App. 314 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2009

And I think that when you look at all the facts and circumstances here, the administrative inspection was clearly a pretext for a criminal case. There was an anonymous tip. … Regarding related Tallman factor six, the available evidence in this case reflects that “the degree of intrusion occasioned by [the] particular regulatory search” did not qualify as excessive or unnecessary.