Case law

People of Michigan v. Frank James Neal

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2020

The prosecutor did not inquire about defendant’s prior arrests in order to establish witness bias. Rather, this was a simple instance of impeachment by contradiction. … With the foregoing qualifiers, I agree that the prosecutor did not err when she impeached defendant based on his claim that he had never been in trouble before while explaining why he initially lied to police about which

People of Michigan v. Jawaun Lee Green

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 11, 2026

Additionally, it is well established that even minimal circumstantial evidence is adequate to establish intent, given the inherent challenges in ascertaining a defendant’s state of mind. … Consequently, the trial court did not clearly err when it assigned 25 points to OV 3. III.

Matthew Shelson v. Secura Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 19, 2015

Moreover, she clearly had a significant relationship with Gonzalez such that permission to use the vehicle apparently was never denied. … While there are facts in common with Chop and Ardt, these facts, by themselves, do not establish ownership.

People of Michigan v. Mark Lin Bessner

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2021

Defendant argues that the prosecutor intimidated or coerced Trooper Berger into invoking his Fifth Amendment right by refusing to grant immunity to Trooper Berger. … But the prosecutor was not required to grant immunity to Trooper Berger.

in Re a J Smith Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 9, 2017

However, it does not appear that (c)(i) was established by clear and convincing evidence in this case. … Nevertheless, respondent’s substance abuse qualifies as an “[o]ther condition” causing AJS to come within the court’s jurisdiction. See MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii).

People v. Camon

110 Mich. App. 474 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1981

It was never established that the seized knife was used to perpetrate the assault. … See People v White, 102 Mich App 156 ; 301 NW2d 837 (1980), in which I qualified somewhat the Sturdivant rationale.

Dominique Zanders v. Greektown Casino LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2017

But even assuming plaintiffs presented evidence that could clearly and convincingly establish they were about to report a suspected violation of law to a public body, plaintiffs’ claims fail for another, obvious reason. … Nor do we view the comment as clearly reflective of racial bias.

in Re Parole of Frederick Wilkins

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2019

-5- order in context and in light of other established facts regarding Wilkins specifically. The trial court did not clearly err in so doing. B. … Our concern is that the Board allegedly did establish a mandatory structured and monitored living environment for Wilkins upon his release.

In Re Lcp Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2025

Ideally, however, the Legislature should consider amending MCL 712A.19b(3)(f)(i) to include the same qualifier found in MCL 710.51(6)(a): “A child support order stating that support is $0.00 or that support is reserved shall … This finding is at odds with In re SMNE, 264 Mich App at 56-57 and MCL 710.51(6)(a), which required petitioners to establish that respondent-father had the ability to provide regular and substantial support.

People of Michigan v. Antonio Maurice Whitley

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2025

Clearly, the wound that Harris actually suffered from that assault would be relevant and admissible, subject to MRE 403. See id. … Merely because evidence of Martell’s pending charges would have been admissible to impeach him, that does not automatically qualify the evidence as being “material.”

Noel Dorsey v. Surgical Institute of Michigan LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2021

In response, plaintiff argued that the jury was properly instructed and that the 12% interest was clearly intended to apply only to the precomplaint period, consistent with the court’s instructions. … Without his testimony, plaintiff could not have established a prima facie case of negligent credentialing.

People of Michigan v. Smokey Dee Crutcher-Bey

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2016

Here, as already discussed in this opinion, defendant has failed to establish any error. … If the answer is “yes,” then a defendant cannot establish any plain error.

in Re Stephenson Family Trust

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2020

The probate court held that respondent was authorized under the power of attorney and the Trust to make distributions to himself and his children, but his authority to do so was limited to gifts “that will qualify for exclusion … First addressing respondent’s authority under Vernon’s power of attorney, it is well established that “[a] power of attorney provides the agent with all the rights and responsibilities of the principal as outlined in the

Noel Dorsey v. Surgical Institute of Michigan LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2021

In response, plaintiff argued that the jury was properly instructed and that the 12% interest was clearly intended to apply only to the precomplaint period, consistent with the court’s instructions. … Without his testimony, plaintiff could not have established a prima facie case of negligent credentialing.

Keywell & Rosenfeld v. Bithell

254 Mich. App. 300 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2003

And the case is clearly a contingent fee case. I mean when you have, as I understand the testimony from — I just read the deposition. … The rule [MRPC 1.5] states that a lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for[,] chargef,] or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee.

People of Michigan v. Jaquone Quorteze Leach

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2025

At trial, Michigan State Police Sergeant Dean Molnar was qualified as an expert in firearms and tool marks analysis. … On appeal, this Court concluded that the trial court clearly erred in denying the motion to suppress. Id. at 592.

People of Michigan v. Randy Lance Braun

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2014

If that conclusion required specialized knowledge, then she would first have to be qualified as an expert witness. This did not happen. … The court rule clearly provides the proponent of the expert with a choice of alternatives regarding how to inform the other party of the substance of the expert’s proposed testimony.

Afl-Cio v. Civ Ser

208 Mich. App. 479 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 1995

The law of this case establishes that a civil servant's release to participate in union activities under various union-leave arrangements is on-the-job behavior related to job performance; the union-leave programs at issue … "It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined." Grayned v Rockford, 408 US 104 , 108; 92 S Ct 2294 ; 33 L Ed 2d 222 (1972).

In Re Parole of Glover

226 Mich. App. 655 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1998

Their testimony established that appellant has put her talents and industry to extensive use while in prison. Appellant earned college degrees with high honors and received a prestigious literary award. … But when a State enacts a parole system, and creates the possibility of release from incarceration upon satisfaction of certain conditions, it necessarily qualifies that initial deprivation.

Roy F Elturk v. Sarah E Elturk

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 2026

DISSIPATION OF MARITAL ASSETS Plaintiff next argues that the trial court clearly erred when finding that he dissipated $183,863 in marital assets. We agree the trial court clearly erred in this regard. … Under these facts, the trial court clearly erred when it found plaintiff dissipated $183,863 from the marital estate.