Case law

In Re S a Wilkins Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2024

“Title II of the ADA requires that ‘no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a … In summary, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify respondent and SAW. IV.

Michigan Afscme Council 25 v. County of Wayne

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 2024

The 2006 Health and Welfare Benefit Plan clearly indicated: “All employees hired or rehired on or after December 1, 1990 shall not be eligible for health care benefits . . . upon retirement unless … The arbitrator found that, if the conduct established a separate provision, as plaintiff contended, there was no express repudiation of the 30-year practice and defendant did not change its practice until 2010, two years

Detroit/Wayne County Stadium Authority v. Drinkwater, Taylor & Merrill, Inc.

267 Mich. App. 625 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2005

Clearly, it was defense counsel who solicited the mayor’s testimony to which defendants now object in an attempt to discredit the mayor’s testimony on direct examination. … They usually admit the latter type of evidence, sometimes qualifying their ruling by stating that the sale adduced must not be too remote in time or that there must be no drastic change in market conditions.”

Mark Cooper v. Raymond D Comer

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2019

before her trial testimony wherein he informed Johnson that an individual was planning to challenge her in the next election for her position of Onondaga Township Clerk and suggested that the Township had jeopardized its immunity … In this instance, plaintiff’s alleged misconduct is not sufficiently tied to the claim of nuisance to justify the denial of equitable relief for a clearly established private nuisance. II.

in Re Taylor Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2015

She also refused to have her children immunized and declined recommended antibiotics before GT’s delivery despite testing positive for Strep B. … Respondent-mother argues that the trial court erred in finding that clear and convincing evidence established MCL 712A.19b(3)(k)(iii) because the court did not find that she seriously abused GT.

Charter Township of Shelby v. Argonaut Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2015

Interpretation of insurance policy terms follows Michigan's established principles of contract construction. Henderson v State Farm Fire & Cas Co, 460 Mich 348, 353; 596 NW2d 190 (1999). … Clearly, but for Heika’s status as a police officer and his response to a call as part of his official duties, he would not have gone inside plaintiff’s home.

Shanetta Hannah v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mi

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 2017

To establish a rebuttable prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must present evidence that (1) she belongs to a protected class, (2) she suffered an adverse employment action, (3) she was qualified … A plaintiff’s engagement in protected activity “does not immunize him from an otherwise legitimate, or unrelated, adverse job action.” Id. at 187.

Timothy a Carl v. Muskegon County

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2015

Clearly, the relationship between the Plaintiff and Dr. Jawor at the time she examined him was of a professional nature. … Under MCR 2.116(C)(7), summary disposition is proper where a claim is barred as a matter of law for reasons such as immunity and the statute of limitations.

Donald W Weingartz v. Lori a Weingartz

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 2023

“Findings of fact, such as a trial court’s valuation of particular marital assets, will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.” Id. … Even so, defendant has not established that the difference in the parties’ monthly incomes stems from an inequitable distribution of marital assets.

Tim Madsen v. Kohl's Department Stores Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2021

Even if a plaintiff engages in “protected activity,” this “does not immunize him from an otherwise legitimate, or unrelated, adverse job action.” Id. at 187. … Defendants concede that plaintiff established a prima facie case of age discrimination because he was 55 years old when he was terminated, and in spite of his declining performance he was still qualified for the position

People of Michigan v. Scott Richard Jurewicz

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2019

Regardless of the precise articulation, some statements qualify under any definition—for example, ex parte testimony at a preliminary hearing. 2 We note that defendant makes brief statements regarding his counsel … established Federal law.”

Lewis v. LeGrow

258 Mich. App. 175 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2003

On the other hand, if an ambiguity exists in such a statute, the language of the statute must be read in light of the previously established rules of common law. … Thus, “to qualify as a private place . . . the area must be one in which a reasonable person would expect not to be disturbed by *187 the appearance of another person or be subject to surveillance [and] [t]he area also must

in Re Petition of Isabella County Treasurer

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2015

[Respondent] has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject property is qualified to receive an exemption under MCL 211.7cc for the tax years at issue. 2. … Further, the evidence presented by [respondent] clearly establishes that Donnamarie Pung resided at the subject property before the death of her husband, Timothy Pung, and continued to reside at

Timothy Sebald v. Belding Area Schools

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2021

Plaintiff does not establish that the provided feedback was insufficient. … Smith was indisputably qualified for the Birney position, having taught the same class during the 2010- 2011 school year.

Haberkorn v. Chrysler Corp.

210 Mich. App. 354 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1995

The plain language of MCR 2.405(A)(1) clearly requires an offer of judgment, not just an offer to settle. … Plaintiffs clearly intended to reject both the mediation evaluation and defendant’s offer to settle. Plaintiffs’ error was in assessing the consequences of their choice.

in Re Yarbrough Minors

314 Mich. App. 111 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 2016

While this sum is not insubstantial, it hardly qualifies as unreasonable. … John evidence clearly called the reliability of that *138 evidence into question.

People of Michigan v. Jason Jay Robinson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2021

The vice grip qualified as a weapon for purposes of OV 1 because defendant used it “for attack.” Hutcheson, 308 Mich App at 14. … This finding establishes a causal link between the breaking and entering and Vanek’s injury.

Marion v. Vaughn

12 Mich. App. 453 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 1968

the beneficiary and which has become payable to him, is subject to attachment by his creditors, and that it is only when the donor or testator who created the trust has by clear language expressed the intention that the immunity … While it would clearly be beyond the purpose of the exemption established in the public school employees' retirement fund act to treat as exempt lump-sum returned accumulated contributions after their deposit in a bank, it

Brunt Associates Inc v. Department of Treasury

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2016

“[T]he 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 be beyond reasonable doubt … * * * (6) Where a manufacturer affixes his product to real estate for others, he qualifies as a contractor and shall remit use tax on the inventory value

People of Michigan v. Jeremiah Dejuan Abcumby-Blair

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2020

A finding is clearly erroneous if this Court is “left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” … But it also pointed out that information on a cell phone is not immune from a search, just that “a warrant is generally required before such a search, even when a cell phone is seized incident to arrest.” Id.