Case law

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.

Bennett v. Mackinac Bridge Authority

289 Mich. App. 616 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2010

In footnote 2, the Viele Court clearly held that an injured worker is entitled to sue his or her direct employer, alleged statutory employer, or both, and that the decision to sue one of these entities instead of the other … American Painting and the Authority did not have adequate notice of plaintiffs previous action against Allstate, their concern is unfounded. 11 VII Lastly, we turn to American Painting’s remaining argument that it does not qualify

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.”

in Re Kevin and Lavonne Vandine Trust

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2019

However, if judicial review of the instrument does not yield the intent of the settlors in drafting the instrument, “in other words, if the document evidences a patent or latent ambiguity,” the intent of the settlors can be established … No amendment shall materially change the trustee’s duties, immunities, or compensation without the trustee’s prior written approval.

Columbia Associates, LP v. Department of Treasury

250 Mich. App. 656 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2002

The network affiliation fees clearly match these qualities. First, the fees constitute payments from the cable operators to the networks. … Therefore, any relevant affiliation fees paid to the networks by plaintiffs before and after Field Enterprises qualified as “royalty” payments under the sbta.

People of Michigan v. Shantee Brown

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2014

The victim’s testimony was sufficient to establish forcible confinement kidnapping. … In light of these facts, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that a preponderance of the evidence established that the victim suffered a bodily injury necessitating medical treatment. Hardy, 494 Mich at 438.

Leonard Astemborski v. Cheryl Manetta

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2022

Thus, in an adverse possession case, for a party to establish possession by clear and cogent evidence, the evidence must clearly establish the fact of possession and there must be little 2 Plaintiffs … Instead, the “[u]se of another’s property qualifies as adverse when made under a claim of right when no right exists.” Id.

Mahir Elder Md Pc v. Deborah L Gordon Plc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2024

as true, El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 159-160, qualify as a “computational, typographical or other similar error” under JAMS Rule 24(j). … Accordingly, this error would qualify as a “computational, typographical or other similar error” under JAMS Rule 24(j).

Yolanda Mays v. Universal Utilities Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 19, 2022

There are no facts in the record to establish that the water meter did not need -5-  IV. … Fifth, MCL 445.903(1)(t) prohibits “[e]ntering into a consumer transaction in which the consumer waives or purports to waive a right, benefit, or immunity provided by law, unless the waiver is clearly stated and the consumer

Kalamazoo Education Assn mea/nea v. Kalamazoo Public Schools

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2023

In other words, the qualifier “as used in this act,” or other similar qualifier, precludes application of a particular definition to other acts when the two statutes in question “do not deal with the same subject or share … Simply, the Legislature need not include dozens or hundreds of unnecessary, explicit cross-references between the GSTA and the UTA to establish that these two statutes are in pari materia. So too here.

Rajmonda Prendushi v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2015

Thus, costs for ordinary, everyday products, expenses, or accommodations that an injured claimant would otherwise bear absent the injury do not qualify. Id. at 26. … Feinberg- Rivkin clearly opined that Mrs.

Lash v. City of Traverse City

271 Mich. App. 207 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2006

Instead, while MCL 15.602 imposes on public employers a duty to refrain from establishing certain residency requirements, it contains no provision to enforce that duty. … The use of the term `mile' without the qualifying adjective to mean `road miles' is to insert into the statute a word not found therein."

People of Michigan v. Steven Joseph McIntyre

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2018

Given the above, defendant is likely correct that his -2- fists would not qualify as a dangerous weapon for purposes of armed robbery.1 Nonetheless, defendant has not established … [(b) The evidence clearly shows that (name witness) is guilty of the same crime the defendant is charged with.]

In Re Guardianship of Bam-L

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2024

“A finding is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, even if there is evidence to support the finding.” … Therefore, the evidence presented before the trial court established that all three requirements under MCL 700.5204(2)(b) were satisfied and, therefore, petitioner was qualified to be appointed as guardian of BAM-L.

People of Michigan v. Steven Joseph McIntyre

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2018

Given the above, defendant is likely correct that his -2- fists would not qualify as a dangerous weapon for purposes of armed robbery.1 Nonetheless, defendant has not established … [(b) The evidence clearly shows that (name witness) is guilty of the same crime the defendant is charged with.]

Joseph Hutchins v. Holly Area Schools

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2018

The motion is properly granted when the undisputed facts establish the moving party is entitled to immunity granted by law. … Clearly, plaintiff would be aware of the salary that he received from defendant district pursuant to the settlement agreement and release simply by reviewing his pay stubs or deposits to his bank account.

20241114_C370902_32_370902.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2024

Gillmore, M.A., L.P.C., C.C.S., a licensed professional counselor, was qualified as an expert in assessment and treatment of problematic sexual behaviors. … Respondent’s counsel did not contest the facts establishing statutory grounds, and maintained that the only dispute was whether termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children.

People of Michigan v. Nicholas James Patton

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2018

Detective Peek was received at the preliminary examination as an expert witness qualified in the area of forensic examination of electronic devices. … But that case is clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans v. Secretary of State

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2020

Here, plaintiffs argue that the Legislature has not met its heavy burden of establishing that it has standing on appeal. … merits and plaintiffs’ failure to establish irreparable harm.