Case law

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

in Re J T Milliken Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2015

Because the trial court did not clearly err by terminating respondents’ parental rights, we affirm. Both respondents in this case have an established history of substance abuse and related criminal activity. … expert witness, established beyond a reasonable doubt that the continued custody of the child by the parents would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.

in Re J T Milliken Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2015

Because the trial court did not clearly err by terminating respondents’ parental rights, we affirm. Both respondents in this case have an established history of substance abuse and related criminal activity. … expert witness, established beyond a reasonable doubt that the continued custody of the child by the parents would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.

People of Michigan v. Max Henry Oom

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2020

Assessment of points for OV 14 does not require that Jones was a codefendant or even charged to qualify as a multiple offender situation. See Dickinson, 321 Mich App at 22. … The trial court did not clearly err in this regard. Again, MCL 777.44(2)(a) explicitly directs the sentencing court to consider “[t]he entire criminal transaction.”

Michelle Burkhardt v. Sue Bayliss

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2017

Plaintiff argued that the ELCRA “applies specifically to all employers and is a waiver of immunity when a governmental employer violates it.” … The court held that plaintiff could bring a claim for ongoing conduct, but that the claim “clearly arises out of the past transaction or occurrence or lawsuit or course of conduct that existed between the City and [plaintiff

People of Michigan v. James Matthew Pidgeon

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2021

That is, rather than emphasizing statements made by White, whose credibility was clearly in question, defendant’s trial counsel instead focused on raising questions about Sullivan’s credibility and encouraged the jury to … how the detective may have influenced Sullivan to implicate defendant by repeatedly interviewing her for long periods, suggesting that she could be a suspect, and telling her that the prosecutor’s office could offer her immunity

Blue Water Cannabis Company LLC v. City of Westland

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2025

The motion may only be granted if the claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could support recovery. Id. III. … Defendants and intervening defendants have not established that this is case is different enough from Pinebrook Warren to compel a conclusion that they should prevail as a matter of law.

People of Michigan v. Jonathan Castillo

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2022

A finding is clearly erroneous when this Court “is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” Id. … We find that the trial court did not clearly err in determining that the testimony of Villafuerte was not credible.

People of Michigan v. Brian Clifford Wheeler Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2016

Nonetheless, apart from Singleton’s testimony, the prosecutor introduced sufficient evidence that alone established defendant’s guilt. … Further, if defense counsel had objected to the admission of Singleton’s testimony on the ground that he had not been qualified as an expert, the prosecutor could have moved to qualify him as an expert.

Estate of Bimla Nayyar v. Oakwood Healthcare Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2023

The February 19, 2013 order therefore constituted a final ruling on the merits and is immune from collateral attack. … However, we find that the panel’s second determination—that defendant was entitled to entry of an order of JNOV— qualifies as clearly erroneous, and that this decision has resulted in manifest injustice to plaintiff under

De Etta Gardner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2016

Winters determined that Gardner was a qualified insured in late August 2010. In early September 2010, she sent Gardner various forms to use for making claims and a form to authorize the release of her medical records. … By her own admission, Winters was not a medical professional and was not qualified to interpret medical tests or reports.

People of Michigan v. Ryan William Schurz

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2020

Defendant has failed to establish that the trial court’s factual determinations -6- were clearly erroneous. … The trial court did not clearly err by assessing points for these OVs.

in Re Wilson Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2016

The evidence clearly demonstrated that the respondent did not show lasting benefit from the services with which she did comply. … The department also referred respondent to Access for services regarding her mental health, but she did not qualify. Dr.

Stand up for Democracy v. Secretary of State

297 Mich. App. 45 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2012

When we interpret a statute, the primary goal must be to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature’s intent, and the judiciary should presume that the Legislature intended a statute to have the meaning that it clearly … If we determine that the petition qualifies for certification, plaintiff would have a clear legal right to have the board certify the petition, the board would have a clear legal duty to do so, the act would be ministerial

People of Michigan v. William Derkley Strampel

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2021

In doing so, we first consider the language of the statue; if it is unambiguous, we conclude that the Legislature intended the clearly expressed meaning and enforce the statute as written. Id. … The second factor therefore was established.

People of Michigan v. Brenton Tyler Spaulding

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2020

Connie Black-Pond, a licensed social worker and a licensed professional counselor with extensive training in victimology and trauma, was qualified without objection “as an expert in domestic violence and its effect on the … Clearly, even if not required, the wiser practice might have been for counsel to make a record of asking defendant whether he wished to testify.

Wolf v. City of Detroit

287 Mich. App. 184 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 2010

authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified or from increasing the rate of an existing tax above the rate authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified, without the approval of a majority of the qualified … Wolf correctly observes that the evidence generated clearly established that the city failed to inspect all the properties it was required to inspect during fiscal *203 year 2007-2008.

Freed v. Salas

286 Mich. App. 300 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2009

. *348 Clearly, credibility and factual issues existed regarding the garbage truck’s speed at the time of the accident. … “The existence of a decedent’s conscious pain and suffering may be inferred from other evidence that does not explicitly establish the fact.” Id.

in Re Gee Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2019

“A trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous if we are definitely and firmly convinced that it made a mistake.” … Nonetheless, respondent fails to establish that the trial court’s finding that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal is clearly erroneous.

Michelle Chojnowski v. Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2015

But first, “in order to establish a claim under both MCL 37.2202 and MCL 37. 2701, the plaintiff must establish that he or she suffered an adverse employment action.” … The trial court was clearly trying to cover all possible contingencies. Chojnowski cannot complain that the trial court was overly thorough. ii.