Case law

People of Michigan v. Nicholas Lee Bowns

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2022

Instead, “movement of a victim that is incidental to the commission of a crime nonetheless qualifies as asportation.” Barrera, 500 Mich at 22. … In light of his admission under oath at the plea hearing, the record clearly reflects that he was lying when he repeatedly denied sexually assaulting his daughter.

in Re Benedetti Estate and Trust

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2015

Therefore, even if we assume that Eva qualified as a fiduciary, a presumption of undue influence does not apply in this case because the respondent’s status as the sole beneficiary under decedent’s trust does not establish … Undue influence may be established through circumstantial evidence, but such “evidence must be of considerable probative force and, quite clearly, must do more than raise a mere suspicion.”

Westfall Heights Property Owners Assn Inc v. Derek Carr

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2025

This directive is clearly inconsistent with the well-established principles of legal interpretation as stated above and is thus incorrect. [Little, 468 Mich at 700 n 2.] … The trial court determined that, based on those facts, the landings’ docks qualified as a “marina.”

People of Michigan v. Stanley Greig Duncan

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 10, 2016

However, after questioning RS, the trial court found RS not qualified to testify at trial. … It is undisputed that RS was presented and qualified to testify at the preliminary examinations of defendant and Vita.

People of Michigan v. Conrad Raymond Gardner

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2015

As a result, defendant argues that the trial court committed error by admitting it as an excited utterance because it did not qualify under this hearsay exception. … Similarly, the statement was clearly related to the circumstances of the startling occasion. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting AF’s statement to SF as an excited utterance.

People of Michigan v. Steven Anthony Fisher

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2018

A “qualifying patient” or “patient” is “a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.” MCL 333.26423(l). … The MMMA did not decriminalize marijuana offenses: instead it only offers immunity and an affirmative defense for otherwise criminal acts. People v Kolanek, 491 Mich 382, 394; 817 NW2d 528 (2012).

in Re Ml Wade Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2017

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.” … -4-  Likewise, with respect to respondent-father, MCL 712a.19b(c)(i) and (ii) were clearly established.

People of Michigan v. Donquia Jerome Beavers

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2017

Therefore, the only remaining question for this Court is whether there was sufficient evidence provided to establish that defendant indeed possessed a firearm. … Defendant clearly knew the location of the weapon and had reasonable access to it; the gun was in plain view on the kitchen table, in close proximity to defendant.

People of Michigan v. Vashon Flowers

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2022

The statements therefore were admissible under the hearsay exception for excited utterances, and the trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion nor clearly err by admitting these statements. … to qualify that witness as an expert may be harmless.

People of Michigan v. Gerald Lee Arbuckle

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 2026

to do, and defendant complained that there had been “a breakdown in communications” with his attorney, that “[t]he appointment was forced in the first place,” and that he did not believe that the appointed attorney was qualified … We need not address this argument given that defendant is clearly entitled to relief under Anderson’s second prong. See id. at 368.

In Re Khammo Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2023

“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.” … was diagnosed with adjustment disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and was receiving psychiatric services through his Qualified

People of Michigan v. Miguel Aguilar-Soto

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 2021

The trial court expressed concern that Hunter may not have qualified as a victim of defendant’s home- invasion conviction because the felony information only referred to Flores on the relevant charge, and “Flores does not … Evidence established that the injuries were caused by defendant assaulting her.

People of Michigan v. Ricco Rafeal William-Salmon

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 2020

Additionally, to establish good cause for the removal of a juror under MCR 6.411, it must be established that one of the reasons in MCR 2.511(D) exist, or that another “reason recognized by law” exists. … Slappey’s prior statements qualify as hearsay. MRE 801. Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by the rules of evidence.

People of Michigan v. Renaldo Ramon Presswood

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2018

Reversal of a trial court’s jury instruction decision is appropriate only where the offense was clearly supported by the evidence; an offense is clearly supported where there is substantial evidence to support … Additionally, the prosecutor’s next witness was Flint Police Department Sergeant Jason Groulx, who was qualified as an expert in traffic crash reconstruction.

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.

Kimberly a Bykaylo v. Charter Township of West Bloomfield

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 14, 2020

A plaintiff can establish that the employer’s proffered reasons for the adverse employment action qualify as pretextual by demonstrating that the reasons (1) had no basis in fact, (2) were not the actual … As noted earlier, “[a] plaintiff can establish that the employer’s proffered reasons for the adverse employment action qualify as pretextual by demonstrating that the reasons (1) had no basis in fact, (2) were not the actual

Carla Abraham v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2018

Disaster was not a qualified company to remediate the flood itself. To the degree that plaintiff argues that U.S. … Clearly, Lillian Abraham was the customer, not plaintiff in her individual capacity.

in Re B Hadd Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2017

Because we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that grounds for termination were established under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j) with respect to both respondents, any error in relying on … The trial court did not clearly err in finding that grounds for terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights were established under §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j). B.

in Re B Hadd Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2017

Because we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that grounds for termination were established under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j) with respect to both respondents, any error in relying on … The trial court did not clearly err in finding that grounds for terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights were established under §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j). B.

Lynn Beth Baum v. David Baum

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2024

A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. People v Lee, 314 Mich App 266, 272; 886 NW2d 185 (2016). … Lynn even admitted on cross-examination that she was unaware of any civil proceeding establishing that Alliance owed her money.