Case law

Pilarowski v. Brown

76 Mich. App. 666 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 1977

Having stated these well-established principles, we turn to the question of whether there are circumstances herein which would justify the issuance of a writ of mandamus. … Nevertheless, the defendant has the burden to prove that avoidance of such friction with the commissioners is a vital state interest and that this interest clearly outweighs plaintiff’s right to freedom of expression.

In Re AMB

248 Mich. App. 144 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2002

Uh, the fact that he is the father of the mother, as well as the father of the child would lead the Court to believe that he is not qualified to make that kind of decision anyway. … The family court must comply with the notice requirements in MCR 5.920 and MCR 5.921 to establish personal jurisdiction over respondents.

Roberts v. TITAN INS. CO.(ON RECON.)

282 Mich. App. 339 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2009

Therefore, the record establishes that Irwin had use of the vehicle for a period greater than 30 days. … Relying on this provision, Titan argues that the insurance policy alone clearly precludes coverage for Roberts’s claims.

P E K Investments LLC v. Randy D Brandenburg

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2015

Although plaintiff’s reliance on Weisel is questionable to support an argument that had no factual relevance to the principle stated in Weisel, we cannot conclude that it clearly qualifies as frivolous. … Thus, plaintiff’s argument does not clearly qualify as frivolous.

People of Michigan v. Christian Jesjuan Folden

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 28, 2015

Again, Church’s testimony does not clearly identify which individual—defendant or his uncle—made the statements Church related from the bathroom conversation. … Instead, he merely speculates as to what this potential evidence might have established.

Margaret Barnowski v. Cleary University

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2020

Believing that she was now qualified for benefits for her claim against Cleary University, claimant did not take further action. … This standard “is indistinguishable from the clearly erroneous standard of review. . . .” Id.

In Re Brock

193 Mich. App. 652 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1992

Before trial, and over the objection of counsel for respondents, the court qualified Lieutenant Robin Presley as an expert on child abuse. Lt. … Major Gregory Toussaint, M.D., Chief of Pediatrics at Sawyer Air Force Base, was qualified as an expert in pediatrics and child sexual abuse.

Brad Barrett v. City of Flushing

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2024

However, as previously explained, the evidence did not clearly establish that plaintiff showed causation with respect to the Liberty Diner meeting or the March 20, 2020 hearing and the surrounding communications. … Similarly, the evidence did not clearly establish that plaintiff showed causation with respect to the December 2019 meeting.

Mettler Walloon, LLC v. Melrose Township

281 Mich. App. 184 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 2008

Turner argued that Graham could not “establish the rules at the beginning of a meeting,” and that the ZBA should establish the rules, not the township’s attorney. … A finding is clearly erroneous if panel members are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

Patricia J Dignan v. Ypsilanti Community Schools

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2019

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, plaintiffs must show that (1) they are members of a protected class; (2) they were subject to an adverse employment action; (3) they were qualified for the position; and … Candidates in the pool were qualified and some were members of the same protected class in regard to age and race as plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of discrimination.

Crego v. Coleman

232 Mich. App. 284 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1999

"[U]nder established rules of statutory construction, statutes are presumed constitutional, and courts have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless unconstitutionality is clearly apparent." Mahaffey v. … Conclusion I would find that § 3 of the Paternity Act was not clearly unconstitutional in its application.

Gary Goldberg v. First Holding Management Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2016

Furthermore, plaintiff failed to establish member oppression. … “[W]e defer to the trial court’s findings of fact, which we will affirm unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.”

Tiffany Donner v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2024

Specifically, Progressive argued that when she renewed her insurance policy in January 2021, plaintiff opted out of PIP coverage, providing proof of Medicare Parts A and B to establish qualified health coverage, and only … We agree.5 The language of MCL 500.3107d(6) clearly and unambiguously provides that an individual who opts out of PIP coverage because of qualified healthcare coverage, and who loses that coverage, must obtain new

William Kelly v. Graphic Packaging International LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2025

“MCR 2.116(C)(7) tests whether a claim is barred because of immunity granted by law.” Zezula v Brown, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___NW3d ___ (2025) (Docket No. 368261); slip op at 2 (quotation marks and citation omitted). … In this case, plaintiff argues that “[t]erminating an employee for participating in a civil rights trial or requesting accommodations violates clearly established public policies.”

Cathy a Martin v. E C Brooks Correctional Facility

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2014

“This latter standard is indistinguishable from the clearly erroneous standard of review that has been widely adopted in Michigan jurisprudence. . . . … Here, as noted, the MCAC and trial court found that claimant failed to establish good cause for leaving her employment because she left in response to rumors.

Renee Swain v. Michael Morse

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2020

Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err by finding an intentional misstatement on the duration of Koza’s support. … Further, as a lay witness, plaintiff is not qualified to testify to the legal effect of Morse and Zarkin’s actions. See MRE 701.

People of Michigan v. Roberto Marcello Dupree

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2020

Canine officers can be qualified as experts under MRE 702 by satisfying the test for reliability of tracking-dog evidence. … In order to establish that tracking-dog evidence is sufficiently reliable, it must be demonstrated that: (1) the handler was qualified to use the dog; (2) the dog was trained and accurate in tracking humans

People v. Lueth

253 Mich. App. 670 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2003

Moreover, mpm was clearly harmed by the financial loss caused by defendant’s actions. … Qualified as an expert in pari-mutuel wagering, Jewell described the racing commissioner’s licensing procedures.

Matthew Migdalewicz v. Perry D Hollie

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 2020

The evidence in this case clearly supports a finding that defendant initiated a left-hand turn, and while looking away from oncoming traffic, paused for up to three seconds across the center line. … This presumption created by the special jury instruction is inconsistent with Michigan negligence law, and effectively immunized defendant from his own negligence.

People of Michigan v. Derrick Darnell Archie-Morris Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 2024

Police later became aware that defendant was also involved in the shooting based a proffer statement that defendant provided to the prosecution in exchange for use immunity. … Indeed, this Court has conclusively held “that the Legislature clearly intended to permit a defendant charged with felon in possession to be properly charged with an additional felony-firearm count.”