Case law

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.

People of Michigan v. Damien Lee Lang

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2025

Defendant has not established that the prosecution’s voir dire questions deprived him of a fair trial. 4. … Accordingly, “[a]ttorneys and courts must clearly maintain the distinction between the profile and the substantive evidence” of a -9- defendant’s guilt. Id. at 57.

D People of Michigan v. Antrone Tywone Wilson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2023

Thus, the initial introduction of this evidence does not qualify as plain error.” … Considering the limited nature and responsive context in which these remarks were made, they were not clearly improper. Kennebrew, 220 Mich App at 608.

League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2020

See Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356; 6 S Ct 1064; 30 L Ed 220 (1886) (the right to vote is “a privilege merely conceded by society”); Wesberry, 376 US at 17 (decided in 1964 and stating that persons qualified to vote have a … not issue where the party seeking it has an adequate remedy at law); Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v Secretary of State, 280 Mich App 273, 284; 761 NW2d 210 (2008) (the party seeking a writ of mandamus must establish

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.

Vanslembrouck v. Halperin

277 Mich. App. 558 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 2008

The provision does not limit or qualify which period of limitation applies, the two-year period of limitation rooted in § 5805(5), or the six-month discovery period found in § 5838a(2). … Joseph, Inc., 479 Mich. 243, 249 , 736 N.W.2d 561 (2007), where the Court recognized that the first part of MCL 600.5851(7) establishes a specific time in which a person under the age of eight must file a claim, with Miller

in Re M a McCary-edwards Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2019

-3-  Turning first to §§ 19b(3)(b)(i), (k)(iii), and (k)(iv)4, respondent does not dispute that the child was physically abused, or that the abuse qualified as severe, was … Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err in determining that statutory grounds exist to terminate respondent’s parental rights.

Saad Akram Bahoda v. Steven M Kaplan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2017

In reaching its conclusion, the Barrow Court explained: In order to establish a cause of action for legal malpractice, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing the following elements: (1) the existence … Plaintiff’s reliance on Trakhtenberg is misplaced because that case is clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

People of Michigan v. Kallay Randal Batchelor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2017

Instead, Batchelor’s lawyer intentionally waived a challenge to the admission of the video evidence by “clearly express[ing] satisfaction” with its introduction. … Moreover, Batchelor cannot establish that he was prejudiced by the admission of the challenged statements.

People of Michigan v. Jared Garrison Reed

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2017

Given their apparent surplus, they clearly had more marijuana than was “reasonably necessary” to ensure uninterrupted availability for their patients. … “A statute challenged on constitutional grounds is presumed to be constitutional and will be construed as such unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.”

20230221_C358803_61_358803.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2023

Chief Bierling’s assumption that the release of information would make officers nervous is a far cry from establishing that it would endanger them. … Chief Riley and Chief Bierling’s speculative affidavits are insufficient to establish the necessary proof.

Heather Joy Franklin v. David Anthony Kohler

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2025

“A finding of fact is against the great weight of the evidence if the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). … The court acknowledged that the move would financially benefit defendant and his family, but it emphasized that it “must evaluate this factor with a focus on [SF’s] quality of life,” and SF’s “qualify of life may not be improved

Saad Akram Bahoda v. Steven M Kaplan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2017

In reaching its conclusion, the Barrow Court explained: In order to establish a cause of action for legal malpractice, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing the following elements: (1) the existence … Plaintiff’s reliance on Trakhtenberg is misplaced because that case is clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Hudson Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2025

“Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) is appropriate when a claim is barred because of immunity granted by law.” Mays v Snyder, 323 Mich App 1, 25; 916 NW2d 227 (2018). … Summary disposition may be granted only when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify recovery. Id.

20240111_C365379_49_365379.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2024

WJ3 qualified for “Early On” services because of neurological problems and had some delays in speech and motor skills. … Clearly, adequate evidence of severe physical injuries and physical abuse existed as defined in MCL 712A.19b(3)(b).

John Stuth v. Home-Owners Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2022

“[A] finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. … The dissent correctly notes that to establish a causal connection, there must be an actual need to take evasive action at the time of the crash.

Pastor Idella Williams v. National Interstate Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2016

National Interstate argued that the video, which plaintiff admitted depicted her after the incident, “clearly” showed that she had “not been honest in her deposition or interrogatories with regards to her injuries.” … In stark contrast, the video shows plaintiff—after the March 2 It is questionable whether the letters plaintiff attached to her brief in opposition to summary disposition qualify as “documentary evidence” for purposes

Johnny Zaitona v. John Leonowicz

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2026

In its order, the trial court confirmed that, to establish an invasion of privacy claim, plaintiffs first must establish a secret and private subject matter. … But Garg, of course, did not operate to immunize future wrongful conduct.

Joann Scanland v. Beaumont Hospital

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 2019

Further, “[t]he fact that the parties dispute the meaning of a release does not, in itself, establish an ambiguity.” … Similarly, the other “extrinsic” evidence fails to establish any patent ambiguity.

Geoffrey Paine Dds v. Layne Godzina Dds

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2023

As to the third argument, it is true that including the word “both” in the arbitration clause would have more clearly established that arbitration is required for both “questions of fact arising under this Agreement” and … But by the same measure, including the word “or” in the arbitration clause instead of the word “and” would have more clearly established that arbitration is required for either one of the two specifically listed instances