Case law

Zug Island Fuels Company LLC v. Department of Treasury

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2022

There is no dispute that the purchased coal itself, at the contract prices thereon, qualified for the inventory deduction under MCL 208.1203(3) and MCL 208.1113(6)(a). … The terms “freight,” “shipping,” “delivery,” and “engineering” are quite clearly used as separate adjectives modifying or describing the plural noun “charges”; they cannot logically stand on their own and make sense in the

Saylor Lavallii v. Dr Matthew R Jackson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2020

Summary disposition is proper under MCR 2.116(C)(7) when the moving party can establish immunity. … A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may be granted only where the claims alleged are so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.

Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North America Inc

269 Mich. App. 25 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 2006

A finding is clearly erroneous when, after reviewing the entire record, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. … doctrine are relevant to the development of water law in Michigan. 31 Under the natural flow doctrine, each riparian proprietor of a watercourse has a right “to have the body of water flow as it was wont to flow in nature,” qualified

Sandy Pines Wilderness Trails, Inc v. Salem Township

232 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 8, 1999

Respondents contend that because the park models are not located in a mobile home park as that term is defined in the tmhca, the park models therefore do not qualify for the $3 specific monthly tax. … Exemptions are never presumed, the burden is on a claimant to establish clearly his right to exemption, and an alleged grant of exemption will be strictly construed and cannot be made out by inference or implication but must

in Re pickworth/little Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2017

In order to terminate parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination has been established by clear and convincing evidence. … BL’s foster parents often took her to a doctor because of her poor immune system.

Okrie v. State

306 Mich. App. 445 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 2014

The Court of Claims Act reflects the state’s waiver of sovereign immunity from suit and submission to a court’s jurisdiction. Greenfield Constr Co, 402 Mich at 195 . The Court of Claims thus was legislatively created. … The Constitution of 1835 established the Supreme Court as the lone constitutional court in Michigan, but *455 also indicated that the Legislature could establish other courts.

Estate of Douglas Widmar v. William Beaumont Hospital

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2023

The Court alluded to the trial court’s well- established gatekeeping role in determining the reliability of expert testimony. Id. at 571 n 16. … Salzman is not qualified to offer standard-of-care testimony against them, and whether Dr.

Kennedy Amman v. Bethany Busch

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2023

As her deposition testimony clearly established, her name is Yasmin Gewirtz. … But if a governmental employee acted in a grossly negligent manner, immunity does not apply. MCL 691.1407(2)(c).

People of Michigan v. Gregory Cornell Anderson

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 11, 2026

Moreover, even without the firearm, the victims’ testimony independently established defendant’s guilt. … Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err in assigning 10 points for OV 4. III.

In Re Virgil F Hoppert Estate

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2023

First, a “bonafide offer” must be established, and written notice of it “shall immediately” be provided to the other Parties. … It therefore clearly met the standard of pleading a valid defense to a claim. See Slater, 250 Mich App at 425.

Kimberly Johnson v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 2025

But “[t]he fact that a plaintiff engages in a “protected activity” under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act does not immunize him from an otherwise legitimate, or unrelated, adverse job action.” … The employee’s charge must clearly convey to an objective employer that the employee is raising the specter of a claim of unlawful discrimination pursuant to [ELCRA].”

People of Michigan v. Joseph Robert Misko

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 19, 2016

A statute is presumed to be constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent. People v Deroche, 299 Mich App 301, 305; 829 NW2d 891 (2013). We review de novo a question of constitutional law. … Next, defendant argues that the trial court erred in ruling that he failed to present a prima facie case of entitlement to immunity, § 4, or to a defense, § 8, under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421

Township of Williamstown v. Sandalwood Ranch LLC

325 Mich. App. 541 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2018

Such a holding would immunize unlawful activity simply because it occurs in a farm building. … The Kolendas’ testimony establishes that use of the apartment as a second dwelling by a tenant is a matter of convenience.

People v. Frederick; People v. Van Doorne

313 Mich. App. 457 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2015

What King establishes is that it is not a Fourth Amendment search to approach the home in order *473 to speak with the occupant, because all are invited to do that. … And unlike the circumstances in Lundin, the officers clearly had a legitimate reason to initiate a conversation with both Frederick and Van Doorne.

Joseph Constant v. Leland Prince

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2018

Neither of these cited reasons establishes any bias, prejudice or bigotry by Judge Warren. … The Plaintiff's seriatim amendments clearly result in needless incurring of additional costs and fees by the Defendant.

Joseph Constant v. Leland Prince

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2018

Neither of these cited reasons establishes any bias, prejudice or bigotry by Judge Warren. … The Plaintiff's seriatim amendments clearly result in needless incurring of additional costs and fees by the Defendant.

Justin Matteson v. You Walk Bail Bond Agency Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2017

The question of each defendant police officer’s liability had to be separately resolved because whether he or she was entitled to qualified immunity was based on each individual officer’s subjective “good faith.” … Qualified immunity and its good-faith exception are not applicable here.

Justin Matteson v. You Walk Bail Bond Agency Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2017

The question of each defendant police officer’s liability had to be separately resolved because whether he or she was entitled to qualified immunity was based on each individual officer’s subjective “good faith.” … Qualified immunity and its good-faith exception are not applicable here.

Beth Bauer v. County of Saginaw

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2020

agency’s decision is limited to determining whether the decision was contrary to law, was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record, was arbitrary or capricious, was clearly … As such, McColgan was acting within his executive authority when he terminated Bauer and is entitled to absolute immunity. [Id. (emphasis added).]

People of Michigan v. Jeffery Bernard Morris

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2025

Hawkes was not qualified as an expert witness, so any opinion testimony he offered was as a lay witness only. … This Court therefore can determine if counsel was ineffective on the basis of the existing record, which clearly shows that any objection by defense counsel would not have been successful.