Case law

Stone v. State

247 Mich. App. 507 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2001

However, defendants do not contest that qualified retirants are entitled to receive monthly accumulated sick leave payments under M.C.L. § 38.19f(3) if the payments are taxed. … Accordingly, an exemption from tax must be expressed in unambiguous terms: Exemptions are never presumed, the burden is on a claimant to establish clearly his right to exemption, and an alleged grant of exemption will be

William Louis Rosin v. Laura Miller Rosin

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2025

The court agreed with the referee’s amended findings regarding Berger factor 14, which determined that “it was unreasonable to terminate spousal support” because the evidence established that defendant was “clearly still … schoolteacher positions to certain grade levels and to what she described as “crem de la crem [sic] [school] districts,” and she did not apply to other positions outside of these grade levels and school districts, despite being qualified

Joan M Brovins v. Patrick Cantwell Guinan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2021

Indeed, the facts of this case do not establish any duty that Guinan, Sr., owed to plaintiffs. … Plaintiffs contend that only a qualified privilege exists in Florida, such that malicious accusations made to the police can be used as the basis for a defamation suit.

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.

People v. Federico

146 Mich. App. 776 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1985

The jury found that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of assault with intent to rob while armed. … It is neither clearly erroneous nor improper for a trial court to consider a defendant’s lack of remorse in imposing sentence. People v Fleming, 142 Mich App 119, 127 ; 369 NW2d 499 (1985).

Precision Surgical Associates Pc v. Auto Club Insurance Assn

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2026

Defendant maintains that certain amendments to the no- fault act clearly indicate that the Legislature intended for Medicare payment methodologies to be incorporated into the act. … “MCR 2.116(C)(7) permits summary disposition because of release, payment, prior judgment, or immunity granted by law.”

In the Matter of C H-K

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2024

“A probate court’s finding is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, even if there is evidence to support the finding.” Id. … Thus, these diagnoses qualified as mental illnesses pursuant to MCL 330.1400(g) because they are “substantial disorder[s] of thought or mood . . . .”

People of Michigan v. Victor Peery

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2020

“Accordingly, the Legislature clearly expressed its intent that a person is guilty of felony-firearm under the Penal Code if he or she carries or possesses a firearm when committing or attempting to commit an offense that … Therefore, this Court must determine whether KPEP qualified as a “penal institution.”

MacAtawa Park Association v. Va Properties LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2026

Instead, the “[u]se of another’s property qualifies as adverse when made under a claim of right when no right exists.” … Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that plaintiffs Gronberg and Krissoff did not establish by clear and cogent evidence that their use of the Paths was adverse to defendants’ interests.

People v. Bolduc

263 Mich. App. 430 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2004

Compeau's testimony at the preliminary examination established that two officers confronted defendant at his residence, identified themselves as police officers, and while inside defendant's home informed defendant that they … Clearly, defendant was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business. Bostick, supra .

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.

Jeffrey G Wolf v. Mary B Wolf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2017

Lynch could not qualify for VA benefits and at the same time retain those assets for her support. … Defendant further complains about the trial court’s use of the State Equalized Value (SEV) value for the home to establish its value.

Citizens for Pre-Trial Justice v. Goldfarb

88 Mich. App. 519 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 1979

This finding is not clearly erroneous, and, therefore, will not be set aside. See Moscone v Mitoff, 33 Mich App 259 ; 189 NW2d 763 (1971), lv den, 385 Mich 781 (1971). … Here, by contrast, professional bondsmen, like defendants, exercise a power which is clearly a traditional adjunct of the state’s sovereignty: the power to arrest.

20250305_C367025_65_367025.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2025

Thus, this rule is clearly not applicable to Juror 170, who was related to the trial judge. … The first is that the person is not statutorily qualified to act as a juror.

Anne Fitzgerald Haan v. Gerald Arthur Haan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2024

STANDARDS OF REVIEW “In a divorce action, this Court reviews for clear error a trial court’s factual findings on the division of marital property and whether a particular asset qualifies as marital or separate property … The business clearly prospered during the marriage.

Elizabeth Oghenereke-Omavuezi Eke v. Bobby Festus

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 2025

“[S]tate laws governing the economic aspects of domestic relations . . . must give way to clearly conflicting federal enactments.” Hillman v Maretta, 569 US 483, 491; 133 S Ct 1943; 186 L Ed 2d 43 (2013). … Once it determines the amounts paid to the IRS, the trial court must grant wife immunity under 26 USC 6332(e) for those amounts.

O Lindsey Dezman v. Charter Township of Bloomfield

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2024

Irrespective of whether plaintiffs could qualify for a variance, the erection of an accessory structure incidental to a permitted use nevertheless required review and approval by the ZBA of such structure’s compliance with … She complained that, in the winter months, the coop “will remain largely uncovered and clearly visible.”

People of Michigan v. Sandra June Green

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 2015

People v Houze, 425 Mich 82, 93; 387 NW2d 807 (1986); see also United States v Jones, 565 US ___, ___ n 5; 132 S Ct 945, 950-951; 181 L Ed 2d 911 (2012) (explaining that a “[t]respass alone does not qualify [as an unreasonable … As clearly established in Dunn, people do not enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in areas outside the curtilage, which is the “area around the home to which the activity of home life extends.”

D People of Michigan v. Terry Lester Bundy

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2022

This is because the physician’s testimony lacks a “reliable foundation,” and jurors are just as qualified to evaluate the complainant’s credibility. Id. … As discussed earlier, that testimony was clearly inadmissible because it was based solely on the report from AB’s mother and not based on any medical findings or analysis.

People of Michigan v. Norman Brown

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2017

To find a defendant guilty, “the evidence must establish that that accused departed from a location while equipped with a qualifying weapon in his possession and, at the time of departing, had the intent to use the weapon … This is sufficient to sustain a conviction of carrying a weapon with unlawful intent, which requires the prosecution establish that defendant “departed from a location while equipped with a qualifying weapon in his possession