Case law

Aisha Nichols v. Auto Club Services Incorporated

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2015

“[W]rongdoings which may justify termination of employment under a[n employment] contract do not necessarily qualify as ‘misconduct’ for purposes of the [MESA].” … However, these facts do not establish, on their own, that claimant’s absences constituted statutory misconduct.

People of Michigan v. Thomas Ashley Casson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2021

Regardless, we need not establish the quantum of proof necessary to constitute “concrete evidence” of a purported false allegation of sexual assault because, whatever the exact burden, it was clearly not met by sole reliance … The remand order further provided: Regarding the . . . argument, defendant must first establish, and the trial court shall rule on, whether Cottrell would have been qualified to answer any

Allen Park Retirees Association Inc v. City of Allen Park

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2019

This Court explained: Thus, the record establishes that plaintiffs failed to comply with MCL 600.6431. … 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.”

Pinebrook Warren LLC v. City of Warren

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2022

(“The important distinguishing feature of Booth was that the board was clearly a ‘public body’ that was subject to the OMA, and the various regents and subquorum groups had no independent authority to narrow the field, make … In fact, the City Council had no obligation to issue any licenses, no matter how qualified the applicants.

Lc Bulger v. Detroit Public Schools Community District

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2025

This evidence established a material dispute between the parties as to whether Bulger accrued actual hours worked during the building’s closure. … Defendant thus defensively asserted a strike in response to Bulger’s attempt to immunize himself from charges of absenteeism.

Yvette M Cormier v. Pf Fitness-Midland LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 2017

Plaintiff asserts next that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in defendants’ favor on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, usurping the jury’s role of determining what conduct qualified … -9-  (t) Entering into a consumer transaction in which the consumer waives or purports to waive a right, benefit, or immunity provided by law, unless the waiver

Phil Forner v. Allendale Charter Township

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2020

(e) Arbitrary, capricious or clearly an abuse or unwarranted exercise of discretion. … (iv) Ensures that the buyer of a home who would qualify to purchase the home before the addition of the energy efficient standards will still qualify to purchase the same home after the additional cost of the

Jonathan Hall v. Shawn Edwin Ball

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2017

In relevant part, Ball would be immune to tort liability unless his conduct “amount[ed] to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage.” MCL 691.1407(2). … More importantly, plaintiff also suffered from serious muscle spasms in his lower back, which clearly were objectively manifested. We therefore conclude that summary disposition was premature.

Doreen Rott v. Arthur Rott

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2018

“Where the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. … Although plaintiff did not specify whether the claim was for ordinary negligence or gross negligence, defendant raised the issue of immunity under the RUA and claimed that plaintiff could not prove gross negligence.

People of Michigan v. Antravel Lavar Beckom

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 2019

What defendant is really contesting is the prosecution’s failure to affirmatively disclose Rogan’s immunity to the jury. … Defendant argues that this testimony does not qualify under MRE 801(d)(1)(C) because Rogan was not present for the actual robbery itself. We disagree.

Committee for Marshall-Not the Megasite v. City of Marshall

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2024

The City’s charter provides that the City has “any and all powers, privileges and immunities which home rule cities are or may hereafter be required or permitted to exercise . . . .” Marshall Charter, § 1.03. … The charter provides, in relevant part, that “no ordinance shall contain more than one subject, and the ordinance title must clearly express that subject.” Marshall Charter, § 4.02(a).

Yvette M Cormier v. Pf Fitness-Midland LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 2017

Plaintiff asserts next that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in defendants’ favor on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, usurping the jury’s role of determining what conduct qualified … -9-  (t) Entering into a consumer transaction in which the consumer waives or purports to waive a right, benefit, or immunity provided by law, unless the waiver

Wayne County v. Michigan Afscme Council 25

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 2014

The relevant CBAs and the Health and Welfare Benefit Plans reference employees needing to meet age and/or years of service criteria in order to qualify for health care benefits upon retirement. … 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 they retire with thirty

Robert Davis v. Secretary of State

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2023

FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a registered and qualified elector in Michigan. … Finally, the plain language of MCR 2.313(A)(2)(b)(v) clearly establishes that if a party fails to appear at a properly noticed deposition, the party seeking discovery is permitted to seek an order to compel.

20251118_C373717_35_373717.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 2025

The party seeking to apply a FOIA exemption bears the onus of establishing its applicability. Id. at 274. … Third, if the public record qualifies as a “frank communication,” the trial court must engage in the balancing test and determine if the public interest in encouraging frank communication clearly outweighs the

Abcs Troy LLC v. Loancraft LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2021

The district court ruled that an award of attorney fees under the parties’ contract qualified as damages subject to its jurisdictional limit of $25,000. … Moreover, it will not be known for certain at the outset how much a party will incur in attorney fees during the lawsuit, and subject-matter jurisdiction must be established at the outset.

People of Michigan v. Christopher Lewis Greer

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2026

Accordingly, defendant has not established that his trial attorney performed deficiently. See Ericksen, 288 Mich App at 201. 2. … “[T]he circumstances of the killing[,]” including “an interval of time between the initial homicidal thought and ultimate action,” can establish premeditation.

Carl Peterson v. City of River Rouge

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 11, 2017

Clearly, the retirement handbook does not control because it expressly states that the Charter and the CBA “control and govern the rights and benefits under the Retirement System.” … The actuarial statement does not establish a contractual obligation.

Power Play International Inc v. Del Reddy

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2016

Clearly, there would be no reason to destroy defendants’ personal property and provide plaintiffs with invoices indicating such if the property did not depict, relate, or pertain to plaintiffs or the Howe family. … Where the fact of damages has been established and the only question to be decided is the amount, the certainty requirement is relaxed. Id.

Estate of John Neilson Jackson v. Pioneer State Mutual Ins Co

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2023

The motion may “only be granted when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Id. A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. … Nonetheless, because the testimony from both witnesses was admitted at trial and they were qualified as experts, this argument is also moot. Barrow, 305 Mich App at 659.