Case law

in Re a B York Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2017

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.” … A circuit court also can terminate parental rights if the record clearly and convincingly establishes that “[t]here is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of the child’s parent, that the child will be

In Re Rev Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2023

“A finding is clearly erroneous if this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” Id. … Therefore, respondent has not established, or genuinely attempted to establish, that the trial court erred by finding that this factor did not favor respondent.

House of Representatives v. Governor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2020

It is of course clearly-settled law that “Interpretation of the State Constitution is the exclusive function of the judicial branch. … The greater necessarily includes the lesser; as the EMA expressly defines an epidemic to be a disaster, a fortiori a pandemic also qualifies as a disaster. 9 nothing the

Charter Twp of Plainfield v. Dept of Natural Resources

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2015

If the mere movement of groundwater through a pond constitutes a “use,” then there is no pond that could qualify for the exemption unless it was artificially lined, a requirement clearly not contained within the text of the … Moreover, if the term “use” did not necessarily require human activity or purpose, it is difficult -6- to see how any pond could qualify.

People v. Morrin

31 Mich. App. 301 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 1971

Our concern with maintaining the distinction between degrees of murder reflects a growing insistence by many courts that first-degree and second-degree murder be clearly differentiated. 40 Such differentiation furthers the … Finally, Morrin objects to a ruling that one of his character witnesses was not qualified to testify concerning Morrin’s reputation in the community.

20230221_C359737_47_359737.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2023

While testimony established that defendant is in his 60s, testimony also established that plaintiff is a retired nurse in her 70s and 10 years older than defendant. … Defendant argues that the trial court clearly erred by failing to consider MCL 552.23(1).

People v. Payne

18 Mich. App. 42 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 1970

The increased sentence which was imposed upon the defendant here is clearly impermissible under the recent United States Supreme Court case of North Carolina v. … It would be a high price indeed for society to pay were every accused granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error in the proceedings leading to conviction.'

Maple Manor Rehab Center LLC v. Department of Treasury

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2020

Collection of the QAA, along with matching federal funds, allows for greater Medicaid reimbursements to nursing homes through the Qualified Assurance Supplement (QAS) Medicaid payment. MCL 333.20161(11)(a). … “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.”

in Re a B York Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2017

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.” … A circuit court also can terminate parental rights if the record clearly and convincingly establishes that “[t]here is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of the child’s parent, that the child will be

White Cloud Public Schools v. Orchard Hiltz & McCliment Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 2014

As clearly explained by the Michigan Supreme Court in Miller-Davis I, the statement in Mich Millers was dicta.31 Dictum is not binding precedent.32 At best, the precedent on which White Cloud relies was established in 1998 … We conclude that Miller-Davis I did not clearly establish a new principle of law.

Ferguson v. Delaware International Speedway

164 Mich. App. 283 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1987

A reviewing court affords deference to the trial judge’s decision since the trial judge, having heard the witnesses, is uniquely qualified to judge the jury’s assessment of their credibility. … Second, a meritorious defense must be established. Third, the showing of a meritorious defense must *295 be based on an 'affidavit of facts.’ GCR 1963, 520.4.

Monika Freij v. Mina Nader Freij

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 2026

error a trial court’s factual findings related to the division of marital property,” Cunningham v Cunningham, 289 Mich App 195, 200; 795 NW2d 826 (2010), including “findings of fact regarding whether a particular asset qualifies … Partiality is not established by “expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger, that are within the bounds of what imperfect men and women . . . sometimes display.”

Green v. Wayne Soap Company

33 Mich. App. 74 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1971

While courts speak through their orders, if the meaning of an order is unclear it can be established by parol evidence — in this case by evidence of the long-established practice of the court. [7] It is apparent from the … "In several factual settings some courts have judicially qualified, or `interpreted' rule 41(b) so as to preclude the dismissal of an action from operating as an adjudication on the merits, although the rule on its face,

People of Michigan v. Arthur Shimuel Clemons

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2015

In the felony-firearm statute, there is no ambiguity on which felonies are exempted from qualifying as predicate felonies for felony-firearm, and felon-in-possession is not amongst those listed. … Therefore, because the plain language of the statute does not support defendant’s position, he has not established any plain error, and his claim necessarily fails.

in Re C J W Garno Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 26, 2015

The court noted its concerns regarding the family conflicts and that the parental grandmother may not qualify for a guardianship subsidy. … The court did not clearly err in finding that exposure to such a chaotic environment was not in the minor’s best interest.

Mark Slagle v. Hella Electronics Corporation

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2023

Nor are they clearly reflective of discriminatory bias against men. Plaintiff does not claim that Huang’s statements were “part of a pattern of biased comments.” Id. … See Mitan v Neiman Marcus, 240 Mich App 679, 682; 613 NW2d 415 (2000) (holding complaints amounting to generic claims of “job discrimination” did not qualify as a charge made under the Persons with Disabilities

in Re B J Winans Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2016

Thus, respondent has not met her burden of establishing the requisite factual predicate for her claim.2 People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 6; 594 NW2d 57 (1999). … A “qualified individual with a disability” is an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or

Lara v. Proteccion Plenitud Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2025

The trial court therefore properly established personal jurisdiction over AFL. … Further, AFL’s contract model qualifies as a guaranteed price contract.

People of Michigan v. Leo Duwayne Ackley

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2018

Clearly, Dr. Guertin did not need to be qualified as an expert in child abuse to be able to render expert testimony concerning the genesis of certain injuries. The relevant portion of Dr. … Guertin’s testimony here, while clearly unfavorable, did not cross the line. Likewise, we find no merit to defendant’s contention that Dr. Guertin “Dr.

20241213_C368390_29_368390.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2024

Nonetheless, the ALJ properly concluded that [Nali] does not qualify for a Poverty Exemption. … Under either law, a taxpayer must meet the poverty guidelines as established by the [USDHHS], or [the city’s] alter[n]ative guidelines.