Case law

Jean Lienard v. Applewood Nursing Center Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2023

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition for defendant after it incorrectly struck the testimony of her medical expert establishing causation. … Here, the trial court failed to clearly explain its reasoning or the basis for its ruling granting summary disposition.

Michigan Republican Party v. Secretary of State

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2025

No party disputes that citizens between 18 and 21 years of age are electors and qualified to vote in elections. 2 MCL 168.765a(17). … “A decision is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” Id.

Morgan Stanley Mortgage Home Loan Trust v. Michael J Liebetreu

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2014

Where the language is 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 … And because the documentary evidence establishes that plaintiff currently holds the most recent, recorded assignment of the mortgage, it qualified as a proper foreclosing party under the plain language of MCL 600.3204(3).2

David Holt v. Detroit Department of Transportation

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 2022

However, as a lay witness plaintiff is not qualified to testify about the legal effect of Bechard’s actions. … Summary disposition may be granted under MCR 2.116(C)(7) for an “immunity granted by law.”

Estate of William Jones v. Boulevard Temple Care Center

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2026

summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) arguing that they were entitled to summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims that allegedly occurred between April 10, 2020 and June 29, 2020, under Michigan’s Pandemic Health Care Immunity … Similarly, expert testimony is required to establish causation. Pennington v Longabaugh, 271 Mich App 101, 104; 719 NW2d 616 (2006).

Oshtemo Residents Association Inc v. Oshtemo Charter Township

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2023

or charter when this section is ratified or from increasing the rate of an existing tax above that rate authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified, without the approval of a majority of the qualified … The ordinance, if applicable to a resident, clearly mandated participation in defendant’s sanitary sewer expansion project. Oshtemo General Ordinance § 232.008.

Karen Hrapkiewicz v. Board of Governors of Wayne State University

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2017

If, as indicated in Lytle and followed by the majority, a plaintiff in an age discrimination case need only show that he or she was of a certain age, suffered an adverse employee action, was qualified for the position and … Clearly, and sensibly, when considering whether a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of age discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a trial court must determine whether it was established that a protected

Marilyn E Hibbard v. City of Riverview

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2016

Plaintiffs’ complaint involves the “highway exception” to governmental immunity. … Rather, McLean dealt with a written notice that articulated a vague description of the alleged sidewalk defect but was deemed sufficient because it was accompanied by color photographs that clearly depicted the defect.

People v. Oliver

111 Mich. App. 734 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1981

At the close of the prosecution’s proofs, defendant moved for a directed verdict as to count I, claiming premeditation had not been established. … In light of the apparent fact that the critical interview was requested by defendant, it cannot be said that the lower court’s decision was clearly erroneous.

Rita Walsh v. Marc Sakwa Md

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2025

This Court agreed, holding that the trial court clearly erred by finding that Dr. Samuels’ testimony met the factors of MCL 600.2955(1)(b), (c), (e), (f), and (g). … Here, to establish the standard of care, plaintiffs proffered the testimony of Dr.

People of Michigan v. Eric John Rydzewski

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2020

Interpreting MCR 6.310(E), this Court has stated that the rule’s plain language “clearly limits the discretion of the trial court to vacate an accepted plea. … However, the trial court immediately qualified this interpretation by stating that the question of whether defendant would be admitted to mental health court depended on recommendation contained within the PSIR.

20230112_C357792_57_357792.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2023

Yet Lockhart clearly testified that defendants were searching for persons to fill the positions requested by plaintiff while she was still employed, so plaintiff’s assertion that she was “denied” these positions while plant … Regardless, plaintiff does not argue that Malara was unqualified for the position, only that she was “more qualified” than Malara, or that Malara was “less qualified” than her.

Baks v. Moroun

227 Mich. App. 472 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 1998

Perhaps it believed that qualified directors for Michigan corporations could not be found unless they could be assured that their conduct of their corporations’ affairs could not be challenged after 2 years following disclosure … , which does require two or more predicate acts to establish an actionable “pattern of racketeering activity.” 18 USC 1961(5).

People of Michigan v. Daniel Dante Burch

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 3, 2016

Defendant has the burden of establishing the factual predicate of his claim. People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 6; 594 NW2d 57 (1999). … Defendant next argues that the only eyewitness anywhere near the scene of the crime had clearly been influenced by an unduly suggestive photographic lineup, and otherwise, “the evidence boiled down to Mr.

Mary K Sutton v. James E Sutton

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2020

Defendant testified that he is still treating for bronchiectasis which has seriously affected his immune system. He is exhausted most of the time and sleeps “extraordinary amounts.” … Defendant testified that he and plaintiff divided all pensions and retirement accounts equally upon their divorce through the entry of five Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO’s).

Victoria Taylor v. Farmers Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2025

This evidence established that Taylor’s bill was satisfied for $6,202.78, and Taylor did not bear any responsibility for an amount in excess of that. … First, Taylor observes that she does not qualify for Medicaid because she has no-fault insurance. See Workman v Detroit Auto Inter- Ins Exch, 404 Mich 477, 501-502; 274 NW2d 373 (1979).

Pressley v. Wayne County Sheriff

30 Mich. App. 300 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 1971

Clearly the traffic and ordinance division was sitting as a municipal court when it set bail in his case. … omitted], mothered by the practical necessity of providing a procedural device so that mere numbers would not disable large groups of individuals, united in interest, from enforcing their equitable rights nor grant them immunity

20250228_C366034_32_366034.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2025

A witness qualifies as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education and he testified there to in the form of an opinion or otherwise if one, the testimony is based on sufficient facts … They clearly highlighted the effects of racism on children from communities of color.

Shirvell v. Department of Attorney General

308 Mich. App. 702 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 8, 2015

See, e.g., Rankin v McPherson, 483 US 378, 383; 107 S Ct 2891; 97 L Ed 2d 315 (1987) (“It is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally protected … Clearly, Shirvell’s publicity tour created tension within the office.

Bonnie Faraone v. Lansing Board of Water and Light

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2025

Thus, in a prescriptive easement case, the evidence must clearly establish the fact of possession, and there must be little doubt as to the proper resolution of the issue. Id. … The use of another’s property qualifies as adverse if made under a claim of right when no right exists.