Case law

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.

People of Michigan v. Jay a Yensen

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2021

Rather, as indicated above, four witnesses testified, two complaining witnesses in the instant matter regarding the charges at bar, and two witnesses under MCL 768.27a who clearly and unequivocally testified as to the abuse … Defendant has failed to establish grounds for reversal of his convictions.

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.

in Re Octavio Sanchez Baez

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2018

This is clearly contrary to respondent’s argument. … was not qualified.

Outfront Media LLC v. Department of Transportation

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2017

“A finding is clearly erroneous where, after reviewing the record, this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” … For purposes of this review, evidence qualifies as “competent, material, and substantial” provided that it “is that which a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a decision, being more than a mere scintilla,

Alexa Ward v. Misty Farm LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2022

Finally, defendants claimed the circumstances alleged did not qualify as a nuisance. After filing their answer, defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). … “A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may only be granted when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Id.

Brooks Williamson & Associates Inc v. Thomas Braun

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 12, 2022

Therefore, plaintiffs had the burden of establishing that Eriksen was “qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” to offer an opinion of the damages that the company allegedly incurred. … “A finding is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the record, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” Id.

in Re Black Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2018

Additionally, respondent was to obtain and maintain suitable housing, earn a GED, and establish and maintain a legal income source. … The In re Hicks Court held that the petitioner’s obligation to provide services is subject to the requirements of the ADA, In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 25-26; 610 NW2d 563 (2000), which provides that “‘no qualified individual

in Re Black Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2018

Additionally, respondent was to obtain and maintain suitable housing, earn a GED, and establish and maintain a legal income source. … The In re Hicks Court held that the petitioner’s obligation to provide services is subject to the requirements of the ADA, In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 25-26; 610 NW2d 563 (2000), which provides that “‘no qualified individual

People of Michigan v. Jessie Lee Hobart

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2025

People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215; 612 NW2d 144 (2000) (citation omitted); see also People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 503; 803 NW2d 200 (2011) (“When defense counsel clearly expresses satisfaction with a trial court’s decision … Defendant asserts that those offenses arose from a single criminal act and therefore cannot establish a “pattern” under People v Carll, 322 Mich App 690; 915 NW2d 387 (2018).

Bureau of Health Care Services v. Gerard Anthony Eichbauer Rn Crna

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 11, 2017

Claude Johnson, a nurse anesthetist manager at HFHS, was qualified as an expert regarding the standard of care. … was therefore qualified to testify regarding the applicable standard of care.

People of Michigan v. Matthew Allen Riselay

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 2014

In accordance with this exception, a court may admit as substantive evidence hearsay statements concerning the cause or circumstances of the declarant’s impending death if the surrounding circumstances clearly establish that … Johnson contends that the victim’s statement does not qualify under the exception because she did not verbally indicate knowledge that her death was imminent.

Rembert v. Ryan’s Family Steak Houses, Inc

235 Mich. App. 118 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 1999

Clearly then, Michigan jurisprudence favors arbitration, and the employment context is no exception. … The Steelworkers trilogy established arbitration as the key means to resolving collective bargaining agreements.

People of Michigan v. Jon Thomas Fox

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 14, 2020

Therefore, the statements do not qualify as excited utterances. Still, the analysis cannot end there. … Defendant cannot establish plain error affecting his substantial rights as a result of the prosecutor’s comments.

People of Michigan v. Derrick Stacy Chappel

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2015

Thus, contrary to defendant’s assertion, his felon-in-possession conviction need not have been classified as a serious crime in order to qualify for habitual offender enhancement. See MCL 769.12. … Furthermore, testimony from the MUFI volunteers established that they saw the shooting clearly, if at a distance.

People of Michigan v. Jamar Davon Oliver

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 22, 2018

With regard to defendant’s argument about a directed verdict, we note that defendant’s acquittal of CSC-I quite clearly has no bearing on this Court’s review of the trial court’s decision to deny that motion, given that this … Defendant also contends that the prosecution violated MCR 6.201 by not providing him with an expert-witness curriculum vitae (CV) to establish that Hicks had a “sufficient training background in strangulation” before trial