Case law

20250210_C367100_37_367100.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2025

Jurisdiction may be waived to the criminal division of the circuit court by either: (1) automatic waiver under MCL 764.1f(1), which authorizes a prosecutor to charge a qualifying juvenile who has committed a “specified juvenile … A finding is clearly erroneous when this Court “is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” Id.

People v. Stacy

193 Mich. App. 19 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 1992

An arson investigator of the Michigan State Police was qualified as an expert and testified that the fire was deliberately ignited with an accelerant —gasoline. … In this case, defendant’s girl friend, Iza Nash, was clearly the most damning witness against defendant.

Quantum Concrete Inc v. Plaza De Kaza LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2023

In any event, Plaza de Kaza did submit evidence to support its claim that there was no dispute that the work performed after November 6, 2018, did not qualify as an improvement. … Plaza de Kaza further relied on Trimberger’s deposition to establish that the work was performed to fix Quantum’s defective workmanship, which did not qualify as the provision of labor or materials for an improvement under

People of Michigan v. Jermaine Marcel Agee

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2024

opinion testimony by lay witnesses, and states: “If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; and (b) helpful to clearly … MRE 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise

Jbs Plainwell Inc v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2024

Shineldecker’s Field Narrative clearly indicates that Ms. … The substantial-evidence test “is essentially a clearly erroneous standard of review.” VanZandt v State Employees’ Retirement Sys, 266 Mich App 579, 585; 701 NW2d 214 (2005).

People of Michigan v. Leon David Finnie Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 2014

These acts clearly constitute assault upon Guest by defendant. See, People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 614; 806 NW2d 371 (2011). … We first note that defendant makes no argument that the expert was improperly qualified as an expert under MRE 702.

20250207_C361971_117_361971.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2025

Instead, the prosecution relied predominantly on circumstantial and forensic evidence to establish Beach’s guilt. … “Prejudice must be shown, or facts clearly establishing the inference that it occurred from what was said or done.” People v Fetterley, 229 Mich App 511, 545; 583 NW2d 199 (1998).

People of Michigan v. Christopher Allen Perrien

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2015

Thus, their investigatory stop of defendant was clearly supported by reasonable suspicion that defendant was connected to the murder of the Greenes. … Given the evidence presented, we see nothing clearly erroneous in the trial court’s factual findings in this regard.

Michael G Bsharah v. Wayne County Clerk

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2018

Plaintiff presented evidence allegedly establishing the falsity of Santana’s affidavit of identification to defendant Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett. … When a statute’s language is unambiguous, the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written.

Estate of Samuel Piscitello v. Michael Sherbin Do

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2022

Because “the facts clearly show[ed] that the frothing commenced prior to the team’s arrival,” this Court affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the proposed expert testimony. Id. at 661. … Hershon’s opinions are contradicted by established facts, i.e., Dr.

In Re lafreniere/hildebrandt/brunette Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2022

After reviewing the record, we are not convinced that the trial court clearly erred. … Respondents did not qualify for one of the classes because visitation was a prerequisite to participating in the program and respondents’ parenting time was suspended because of their continued substance abuse.

People of Michigan v. Shawn Kristi Dicken

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2016

MCR 6.201(B)(2) clearly limits discovery of reports to reports concerning “the case[.]” … Because defendant’s mere contention that the requested materials might have contained favorable evidence is insufficient to establish that the evidence she sought was material, defendant has not established a Brady violation

William P Froling Revocable Living Trust v. Pelican Property LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 2016

“Use of another’s property qualifies as adverse when made under a claim of right when no right exists.” … The affidavit is insufficient to establish that the use was adverse.

People of Michigan v. Jonathan Ernest Manwell

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2018

Accordingly, defendant has failed to establish that the statements qualify as plain error affecting his substantial rights. … These lines of questioning were clearly strategic and defendant has not overcome the presumption of sound strategy.

People of Michigan v. Alexan Armen Korkigian

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2020

To establish the affirmative defense, a defendant must “present some competent evidence of preparation or compounding for personal use.” Id. at 244-245. … To qualify as “preparation” for personal use, Korkigian’s acts must diverge from those “manufacturing” efforts specifically prohibited by the statute: production, propagation, conversion, and processing.

People of Michigan v. Caroline Lee Hocking-Sullivan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2015

This evidence was sufficient to establish an assault against the other officers. … This finding is also not clearly erroneous and is, again, objective and verifiable.

Nicole L Smith v. Thelma L Forrest

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 4, 2024

The court should grant the motion if the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could justify recovery. Id. … Having established questions of fact regarding the other elements of a fraud claim, all that is left to determine is whether defendant’s omissions potentially qualify as fraudulent misrepresentations under a claim of silent

Beasley v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad

90 Mich. App. 576 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1979

In Comstock v Wheelock, 63 Mich App 195, 198-199 ; 234 NW2d 448 (1975), cited by plaintiffs, this Court reviewed the elements necessary to qualify under the statute: *588 See also, Pearl v Torch Lake Twp, 71 Mich App 298, … The purpose of the statute is clearly to protect the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship. Gaertner v Michigan, 385 Mich 49, 53 ; 187 NW2d 429 (1971).

Benefiel v. Auto-Owners Insurance

277 Mich. App. 412 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2008

Thus, we assume for purposes of this appeal that plaintiff has established the first three steps of the multistep process of establishing a threshold injury. Kreiner, supra at 131-133 . … We conclude that the correct application of the Kreiner factors establishes that plaintiff has met his burden in establishing that he suffered a serious impairment of body function.

People of Michigan v. William Deshiree Thomas

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2015

OPINION EVIDENCE Thomas next argues that the trial court erred when it allowed Megan Johnston, a crime analyst with the Lansing Police Department who was not qualified as an expert under MRE 702, to provide improper … We conclude that the inconsistency identified by Thomas does not establish that the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony.