Case law

In Re Butler Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2025

We hold the trial court did not clearly err in determining statutory grounds existed. A. … Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that a statutory ground existed to terminate respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(c)(i) because clear and convincing evidence established that respondent

People of Michigan v. Bernard a Fish Sr

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2016

The prosecutor was clearly arguing that Fish’s story was not believable. … “Absent the establishment of errors, there can be no cumulative effect of errors meriting reversal.”35 30 Cf.

in Re cobb/swarthout Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2016

After stating its conclusion that several statutory grounds for termination had been established by clear and convincing evidence, the circuit court proceeded to its best-interests determination. … See In re HRC, 286 Mich App 444, 461; 781 NW2d 105 (2009). 6 The maternal grandmother qualifies as a “relative” under the pertinent provision, MCL 712A.19a(6)(a), as the term “relative” is defined by MCL 712A.13a(1)(j)

Jones Family Trust v. Saginaw County Land Bank Authority

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2017

First, it concluded that summary disposition with respect to the strict-liability claim was appropriate because the claim was barred by governmental immunity. … First, it concluded that governmental immunity did not extend to Rohde Brothers.

In Re Sway Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 16, 2024

The testimony at trial established that respondent-father’s lifestyle lacked permanence and stability. … The evidence established that respondent-mother had sufficiently addressed her own needs for income and housing, but she needed more time to establish that she could meet her children’s basic needs.

in Re Trombly Estate

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2020

“To establish an entitlement to relief based on plain error, the injured party must show (1) that an error occurred, (2) that the error was plain and (3) that the plain error affected [its] substantial rights.” Id. … Accordingly, the probate court did not clearly err by imposing sanctions under MCR 1.109.7 See Vittiglio v Vittiglio, 297 Mich App 391, 406-407; 824 NW2d 591 (2012) (determining that trial court did not clearly err when imposing

Rose v. Stokely

253 Mich. App. 236 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2002

“[I]t is well established that even if a law treats groups of people differently, it will not necessarily violate the guarantee of equal protection.” … We disagree with this analysis, and would conclude that the statutory language does create a classification based on gender. 13 Subsection 2(1) clearly provides that the father of a child bom out of wedlock is liable for

People of Michigan v. Donald Robert Beson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2015

Thus, with this background and experience, Adams would have been qualified as an expert to speak in generalities regarding child sexual abuse. … Taken together, defendant clearly brought his entire character into issue by implying that he should be believed because he is a good Christian family man who had never been charged with misconduct related to a child or with

Save Our Downtown v. City of Traverse City

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2022

consolidated case that required the Michigan Supreme Court to determine whether attachments that allowed access to a building were considered part of the building for purposes of the public building exception to governmental immunity … 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.

Can IV Packard Square LLC v. Packard Square LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2021

The work- product doctrine provides a qualified immunity from disclosure of notes, working papers, memoranda, and similar written materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. … THE RECEIVER’S GOOD FAITH AND IMMUNITY Defendant argues that the trial court erred by determining that the receiver acted in good faith and was immune from all claims.

People v. Gauntlett

134 Mich. App. 737 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 17, 1984

Chapter 6, § 629(3) of the Mental Health Code, dealing with civil immunity for authorizing medical services to wards, provides: "Routine medical services do not include extraordinary procedures. … Yet the considerations mentioned demonstrate overwhelmingly that the condition of defendant’s probation, that he submit to Depo-Provera treatment, is clearly an unlawful condition of probation and invalid under MCL 771.3(

People of Michigan v. Darrell Antoin Winters

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2015

The trial court did not clearly err when it found that Alexander was in danger of physical injury or death at the time of the robbery. … On appeal, Winters argues that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to establish that he was “armed” during the robbery.

Mary Glenn v. Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2017

exception to governmental immunity (MCL 691.1413), and if that exception does not apply in this case, immunity bars [p]laintiff’s suit as a matter of law.” … If the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

People of Michigan v. Christopher Scott Vukin

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2016

A finding “is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, an appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” … However, the court actually qualified Brown as an expert in “the field of child abuse.” The testimony Dr.

Estate of Bernard Francis O'Brien III v. Trinity Health-Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2026

Transfer effectuated through qualified personnel in transportation. … 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.

In Re harris/rodgers/williams Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2026

“A decision qualifies as clearly erroneous when, ‘although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’ ” In re Williams … “If the trial court did not clearly err by finding one statutory ground existed, then that one ground is sufficient to affirm the termination of respondent’s parental rights.”

Margosivili Muhmad Ahmadovic v. Goran Petkovic

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2026

Moreover, even assuming there was no waiver by defendant, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that Exhibit 7 at trial was a valid judgment under the UFCMJRA.6 Under MCL 691.1133(3), a valid judgment is one that … Defendant fails to adequately explain why this document does not qualify as a judgment under the UFCMJRA.

People of Michigan v. Tracie Marie Carter

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2015

If she fails to establish this factual predicate, she not established that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different but for defense counsel’s error. … Further, as mentioned above, defense counsel extensively cross-examined Richardson regarding his findings and clearly established that the physical evidence in Apartment 1 only revealed that the fire “was started by the human

People of Michigan v. James Anthony Reeves

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2015

“Even when somewhat imperfect, jury instructions do not qualify as erroneous provided that they fairly present to the jury the issues to be tried and sufficiently protect the defendant’s rights.” Id. … The federal cases on which defendant relies are inapposite here because they involve situations were a defendant testified under a grant of immunity and was subsequently prosecuted.

In Re M S Threatt Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2026

“Title II of the [Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 USC 12101 et seq.] requires that ‘no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the … A respondent must establish that he or she would have fared better had different services been offered. Sanborn, 337 Mich App at 264. Reasonable efforts were made to reunify respondent with MST.