Case law

In Re dixon/kerse Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2026

After 16 different placements from January 2024 until August 2024, NDD was placed in a qualified residential treatment program (QRTP). MOK remained in his grandmother’s care. … “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, giving due regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to observe the witnesses.”

People v. Rolston

31 Mich. App. 200 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 1971

Moreover, the trial court's conclusion is supported by record testimony and not clearly erroneous. … The rule in Michigan is that if the people fail to establish probable cause at the preliminary examination the defendant's conviction must be overturned even though additional evidence sufficient to support the magistrate's

People of Michigan v. Jeffrey Paul Reiher

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2019

Under MRE 702, a witness may be qualified as an expert by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education[.]” … A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. People v Miller, 482 Mich 540, 544; 759 NW2d 850 (2008).

in Re K a Davidson Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 2019

Under these circumstances, respondent clearly waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction. … Our Supreme Court also noted that the ADA requires that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs

People of Michigan v. Michael Thomas Laube

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2015

To establish the ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy a two- pronged standard by demonstrating “(1) that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that there … To qualify as a victim, the individual must be a direct victim of the crime. People v Carrigan, 297 Mich App 513, 515-516; 824 NW2d 283 (2012).

In Re Coats Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2022

“A decision qualifies as clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” … STATUTORY GROUNDS “To terminate parental rights, a trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that at least one statutory ground under MCL 712A.19b(3) has been established.”

Catalina Starr Smith v. Blake Michael Rotterdam

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2022

the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction. … Because the court held [father] to the highest standard of proof applicable to custody proceedings, the omission qualifies as harmless error.

Djerdj Djeljaj v. American Alternative Insurance Corporation

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 18, 2023

“When a statute’s language is unambiguous, the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written.” Id. … These circumstances clearly implicate the primary purpose of an ambulance acknowledged by defendant, i.e., the transportation of persons for medical care.

Monroe County v. Mark Brant

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2026

As our Supreme Court explained in Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 236-237; 596 NW2d 119 (1999): The rules of statutory construction are well established. … If the language of the statute is unambiguous, the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written.

Moses Webb v. Fidelity Brokerage Services

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2021

, or a stock bonus plan and money purchase plan both of which are qualified, under section 401 of Title 26, and which is designed to invest primarily in qualifying employer securities, and (B) which meets such other requirements … Congress established a special kind of ERISA plan called an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP).

Hyland Assisted Living & Memory Care LLC v. Dhhs

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2019

Among those rules, Mich Admin Code, R 325.20201 specifically prohibits a person from establishing, maintaining, or operating a nursing home unless licensed. … In sum, because the circuit court misapplied legal principles, its decision was clearly erroneous. See Nason, 290 Mich App at 424.

Timothy H Jacobs v. Mark a Jacobs

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2020

PRIMA FACIE CASE OF TITLE Plaintiffs argue on appeal that they established a prima facie case of title to the Disputed Property and that defendants failed to establish that they had superior right or title to the … Beulah Hoagland Appleton Qualified Personal Residence Trust v Emmet Co Rd Comm, 236 Mich App 546, 550; 600 NW2d 698 (1999).

Kimberly Kaminsky v. Matthew Rontal Md

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 2020

Under MRE 702, a qualified expert witness may testify in the form of an opinion if “(1) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the … Following defendants’ arguments to its logical conclusion, a medical provider could simply write: “Thankfully, no malpractice occurred in any of the procedures performed,” which would immunize a medical provider from contrary

In Re Minter Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2022

ANALYSES Respondent argues that the trial court clearly erred in terminating his parental rights because petitioner presented insufficient evidence to establish the statutory grounds found satisfied below. … We conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in its best-interest findings.

In Re Ralph a Siddell Living Trust

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 11, 2023

To establish a claim for common-law conversion, a plaintiff must show (1) an ownership interest, absolute or qualified, in identifiable personal property, see Hance v Tittabawassee Boom Co, 70 Mich 227, 231; 38 NW 228 (1888 … Because Smith cannot establish common-law conversion, she cannot establish statutory conversion under MCL 600.2919a or MCL 700.7813(4).

In Re Guardianship of Is

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2025

[Appellant’s] actions and testimony reflecting a disregard for court orders, and a disinclination to follow a regime she does not control or establish. … A factual finding is clearly erroneous when this Court “is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made . . . .” Id. at 329 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Carol Costello v. Indn LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2019

The use of another’s property qualifies as adverse if made under a claim of right when no right exists. [Id. (citations omitted).] … -3- Mulcahy, the answer is clearly yes.6 The failure to record the easement means that the hair salon’s use of the parking area was made pursuant to the terms of an intended

Bazzi v. Sentinel Insurance Company

315 Mich. App. 763 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2016

However, given that caselaw clearly applies the innocent third-party rule to mandatory coverage, whereas the easily ascertainable rule applies to optional coverage, the rules can be reconciled and the concerns of the lead … Noticeably absent from this qualified and narrow rejection of Ohio Farmers is any discussion about whether an insurer can deny mandatory, statutorily required coverage to an innocent third party on the basis of fraud.

Robert L Hindelang v. City of Grosse Pointe

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 18, 2023

“The burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists.” Id. … GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY Plaintiffs also aver that defendants cannot invoke the immunity available under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq.

People of Michigan v. Marc Curtis Wade

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2024

We conclude that the prosecutor’s arguments clearly demonstrate that the purpose of Worrell’s work experience and communication skills testimony was to establish that Worrell acted in conformity with his character for communication … While we view the introduction and admission of this evidence as a close call, “a trial court’s decision on a close evidentiary question cannot, by definition, qualify as an abuse of discretion.”