Case law

Carney v. Department of Transportation

145 Mich. App. 690 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 1985

These findings are not clearly erroneous. Finally, plaintiff seeks to revive her intentional nuisance claim. … We conclude that the findings of fact by the trial court are not clearly erroneous. MCR 2.613(C).

In re Payne/Pumphrey/Fortson

311 Mich. App. 49 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2015

To terminate parental rights to an Indian child, 25 USC 1912(f), MCL 712B.15(4), and MCR 3.977(G)(2) each require that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of a qualified expert witness, must establish … On this record, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination was in KP’s and DF’s best interests. *65 IV.

Ward v. Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc

186 Mich. App. 120 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1990

See also Dettloff v Royal Oak, 178 Mich App 319 ; 443 NW2d 410 (1989). *127 ii In a further effort to avoid the bar of governmental immunity, plaintiff argues that her claim is cognizable as a nuisance excepted from immunity … Clearly, under the definition recognized in Justice Brickley’s opinion, the requisite element of physical intrusion is missing.

People of Michigan v. Dana Lynn Cook

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2018

Section 4 provides qualifying patients who hold registry cards “broad immunity from criminal prosecution, civil penalties, and disciplinary actions[.]” Kolanek, 491 Mich at 394-395. … That is precisely what is accomplished by Section 4 of the MMMA, as it provides absolute immunity from prosecution to those individuals that can establish the required elements of the statute.

Faircloth v. Family Independence Agency

232 Mich. App. 391 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 1999

(e) A person diagnosed as having acquired immune-deficiency syndrome or acquired immune-deficiency syndrome related complex. … This policy clearly affected the status quo, and those affected by it should have been given an opportunity to be heard.

Cremonte v. Michigan State Police

232 Mich. App. 240 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 1999

The trial court compounded its error by asking defendant to establish the nature and extent of any prejudice, when the court rule clearly places that burden entirely on the party requesting amendment, in this case, plaintiff … Gone are the days of promoting the most qualified person for that position.

Moore v. City of Detroit

128 Mich. App. 491 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1983

Except as otherwise provided herein, this act shall not be construed as modifying or restricting the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed heretofore, which immunity is affirmed.” … immunity.

Sudul v. City of Hamtramck

221 Mich. App. 455 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1997

Sudul's claims for assault and battery were made against the individual police officer defendants, who have qualified immunity pursuant to M.C.L. § 691.1407; M.S.A. § 3.996(107), which provides in relevant part: (1) Except … The federal circuit courts disagree whether qualified immunity is available as a matter of law as a defense against a claim of excessive force. See Alexander v.

City of Detroit v. Kenwal Products Corp.

14 Mich. App. 657 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1969

Maryland, supra, it has become well-established that imports lose their constitutional immunity when the importer (1) sells them or (2) “breaks up the packages” or (3) puts them to the use for which they were imported. … The precise relationship between the domestic companies and the foreign mills (or brokers in some cases) does not clearly appear on the records, but it can be discerned that the domestic concerns entered into separate and

Christie Deruiter v. Township of Byron

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2018

The MMMA provides immunity from arrest, prosecution, and penalty in any manner, and prohibits the denial of any right or privilege to qualifying medical marijuana patients and registered primary caregivers. … MCL 333.26424(b)(2)’s immunity grants caregivers the right to possess 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana for each qualifying patient and cultivate and keep 12 marijuana plants for each qualifying patient in an enclosed, locked

Armstrong v. Ypsilanti Charter Township

248 Mich. App. 573 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2002

These defendants are clearly the highest elective officials in the township and are immune if they were acting within their authority when they eliminated plaintiffs position. ... … On these facts, the Attorney General clearly is “immune from tort liability” because he was “acting within the scope of [his] executive authority.”

People v. Billington

116 Mich. App. 220 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 19, 1982

Edmonds was given immunity. It doesn’t just say that he’s been given immunity. … In the instant case, the prior breaking and entering was clearly relevant to establish defendant’s access to the murder weapon, which fact tends to refute his claimed defense that he did not participate in the shooting and

Renny v. Department of Transportation

270 Mich. App. 318 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 2006

MDOT contends that a patch of ice on a sidewalk was the condition that gave rise to Karen Renny’s injuries and was a condition that was clearly not “of the building itself,” as is required for liability. *324 As a general … The Rennys have both alleged sufficient facts to come under the statutory exception to governmental immunity and produced sufficient evidence to establish a valid claim at law.

Anderson v. City of Detroit

54 Mich. App. 496 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 1974

Plaintiffs appeal. *498 Plaintiffs concede that the doctrine of governmental immunity as set forth in the Michigan sovereign immunity statute, MCLA 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107), is well established but alleges the statute is … The right claimed by plaintiff clearly falls within that class. If a reasonable relation exists between the classification and some legitimate state interest, no denial of equal protection results.

Brown v. Shavers

210 Mich. App. 272 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1995

Taking precedent from other jurisdictions into account, this Court, in Harrison, id. at 457-459, noted that in order to establish the existence of a special relationship, most jurisdictions require at least some contact between … The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary *276 disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), because plaintiffs claim was so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly

Jones v. Williams

172 Mich. App. 167 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 1988

The United States Supreme Court qualified this standard, however, in Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235 ; 78 S Ct 1228 ; 2 L Ed 2d 1283 (1958), stating that the determination of the question of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident … The Court then clearly elaborated three primary factors based upon Supreme Court guidelines as follows: "the quantity of the contacts, the nature and quality of the contacts, and the source and connection of the cause of

Vermilya v. Dunham

195 Mich. App. 79 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 1992

Generally, once a standard of conduct is established, the reasonableness of an actor’s conduct under the standard is a question for the *83 factfinder, not the court. … A trial court’s finding with regard to whether a claim or defense was frivolous will not be disturbed on appeal unless the finding is clearly erroneous.

Board of County Road Commissioners v. Schultz

205 Mich. App. 371 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 17, 1994

To hold differently would be to establish a policy that when a party loses on one defense (release) but ultimately is successful on another (governmental immunity), that party is nevertheless obligated to appeal the unfavorable … In fact, the wording of the stipulation clearly reflects that all claims, i.e., more than one claim, against the board were being dismissed.

Garcia v. City of Jackson

152 Mich. App. 254 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1986

The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that "[t]he Court of Appeals conclusion that plaintiffs had insufficiently pleaded a nuisance cause of action is not clearly erroneous.” Ross, supra, p 657 . … We now turn our attention to the question of what a plaintiff must show to establish an intentional nuisance.

Meek v. Department of Transportation

240 Mich. App. 105 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 22, 2000

This finding is not clearly erroneous. … Given the evidence, the trial court’s award of damages was not clearly erroneous. Affirmed.