Case law

People of Michigan v. Matthew David Miller

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 2018

There were identifiable personal items in the gun safe that clearly belonged to defendant: his passport and his prescription medications. … Defendant next claims that he was immune from prosecution for possession of marijuana because, although his medical marijuana registration had expired, he nonetheless qualified under the affirmative defense provision of §

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

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

Ruthie Allen v. Allstate Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2017

It is also noteworthy that the Grange Court clearly established, at multiple points in its opinion, the limited issues before it and its circumscribed holdings, neither of which are directly applicable to the issue in this … The fourth Dairyland factor weighs in favor of a finding of domicile, as the unrebutted testimony clearly established that plaintiff had a designated bedroom in Hunter’s home. See id. at 495.

People of Michigan v. Gregory Matthew Doherty

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 19, 2015

Strother’s hearsay statements were inadmissible under established rules of evidence. … Defendant was charged with an offense that qualifies as an act of “domestic violence” against a “household member.” See MCL 768.27b(5)(a)(i) and (b)(iv).

Ruthie Allen v. Allstate Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2017

It is also noteworthy that the Grange Court clearly established, at multiple points in its opinion, the limited issues before it and its circumscribed holdings, neither of which are directly applicable to the issue in this … The fourth Dairyland factor weighs in favor of a finding of domicile, as the unrebutted testimony clearly established that plaintiff had a designated bedroom in Hunter’s home. See id. at 495.

Stephen S Stone v. Victor Mrozek

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2022

Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his history with Mrozek establish that they held equal ownership in the company. … “A finding is clearly erroneous when this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

Brenda Jean Stewart v. Timothy James Stewart

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 2021

Additionally, MCR 2.401(B)(2)(a)(vi) permits the trial court to establish the time by which the parties must exchange their witness lists. … “A finding is clearly erroneous if we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. at 432-433.

People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2024

“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, an appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” … 2023, the Court scheduled oral arguments on the application for leave to appeal, instructing the parties to address (1) whether [the MRTMA] supersedes the rule that “the smell of marijuana alone by a person qualified

People of Michigan v. Steven Ray Miller

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2021

Therefore, the trial court clearly erred by assessing defendant 15 points for OV 8. See Hardy, 494 Mich at 438. -11-  2. … Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not clearly err by imposing a sentence that departed upward 13 months from the minimum sentence recommended under the guidelines.

Judy Williams v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2016

Because his opinion was clearly admissible, any failure by the trial court to perform its gatekeeping function did not affect plaintiffs’ substantial rights and did not result in substantial injustice. … Moreover, plaintiffs make no effort to establish prejudice, and the trial court’s ruling did not result in a substantial injustice. See MCR 2.613(A). Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief.

in Re E Sanchez Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2019

STATUTORY GROUNDS Respondent-mother argues that the trial court clearly erred when it found that DHHS established grounds for termination of her parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). … Because the trial court did not clearly err when it found that DHHS had established MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) by clear and convincing evidence, we decline to consider whether DHHS established the remaining ground for termination

D Randall Shaw v. Kamil Marcin Nowakowski

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2023

But ¶ 4.b. clearly applies in light of the liability insurance coverage under the dramshop insurance policy issued by Fremont Insurance to defendant, Crispelli’s LLC. See MCL 436.1803. … That policy provides liability coverage and certainly qualifies as “any other policy.” We cannot ignore the plain and unambiguous language of ¶ 4.b. Andriacchi, 320 Mich App at 62.

People of Michigan v. Adonis Drey Wilson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2026

The prosecutor clearly exercised due diligence in attempting to secure Sparks’s testimony at trial. … Because admission of Sparks’s numerous statements was clearly part of Wilson’s lawyer’s trial strategy, the failure to object under MRE 403 was not deficient performance.

People of Michigan v. Antonio Thigpin

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 30, 2024

Smith was not qualified to offer an opinion on London’s cause and manner of death. Moreover, as shown by their affidavits, Dr. Smith’s opinion largely mirrored Dr. … DeGraw did not “suggest that any other reasonable expert would disagree with his conclusions,” or refer Harris to another qualified expert, as in Ackley.

Gregory Lynn Jefferson v. Michigan Reformatory Warden

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2018

Plaintiff argued that the circuit court’s failure to conduct his preliminary examination within 12 days of his arraignment established a “radical” jurisdictional defect. … A convicted prisoner only qualifies for habeas corpus relief when the convicting court had no jurisdiction to try the defendant for the crime at issue, and a jurisdictional defect is so radical as to render the conviction

in Re Pettis Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2016

This would have been clearly inadmissible without Donald Stanaway’s denial. It is less reliable in the face of the denial. … Although respondent correctly asserts that no information about the date of the conviction or any period of confinement was offered, because respondent admitted having a prior conviction that qualifies for impeachment under

Estate of Linda Roberdeaux v. Evangelical Homes of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2016

Voitus [sic] is qualified. … Voytas was not qualified under MCL 600.2169(1)(b).

Frank Nali v. Logisticare Solutions LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2021

Defendants’ motion for summary disposition did not directly address whether plaintiff could qualify as a third-party beneficiary of the contract between LogistiCare and the state of Michigan. … A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.