Case law

People of Michigan v. Troy Desean Johnson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2018

TR testified pursuant to a grant of immunity. … Because the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the prosecution’s failure to properly redact the video was inadvertent, id. at 258, Johnson has failed to establish plain error with respect to his double-jeopardy

Estate of Robert Muhammad v. William Gresley

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2019

Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that plaintiff’s claims were frivolous. … The trial court did not clearly err in finding that plaintiff’s complaint was frivolous. B.

People of Michigan v. Jimmy Aldaoud

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2015

Indeed, defendant clearly articulated his position at length both before and at the start of trial. Accordingly, the first requirement of Anderson was met. … Willing explained: “Given the limited role that a standby attorney plays, we think it clear that the assistance of standby counsel, no matter how useful to the court or the defendant, cannot qualify

Sawgrass Ridge Condominium Association v. Louis J Alarie

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2018

Sawgrass Ridge Condominium (“the Condominium”) is a condominium community in Grand Blanc Township, Michigan, established pursuant to and governed by the recorded Master Deed, Bylaws, and Condominium Subdivision Plan for the … Article I, Section 2(I) clearly provides for such formalities, providing: Unless otherwise provided, any action which could be authorized at a meeting of the members, shall be authorized by any affirmative

Sawgrass Ridge Condominium Association v. Louis J Alarie

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2018

Sawgrass Ridge Condominium (“the Condominium”) is a condominium community in Grand Blanc Township, Michigan, established pursuant to and governed by the recorded Master Deed, Bylaws, and Condominium Subdivision Plan for the … Article I, Section 2(I) clearly provides for such formalities, providing: Unless otherwise provided, any action which could be authorized at a meeting of the members, shall be authorized by any affirmative

John G Graham v. Vivian a Graham

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2022

The definition of “right” in Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed) includes “[s]omething that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle,” and “[a] power, privilege, or immunity secured to a person by … On this record, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in its findings regarding defendant’s needs.

People of Michigan v. Jason Lee Fedewa

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2024

Henry be qualified as an expert, Fedewa waived this issue on appeal. … The [d]efendant also bears the burden of establishing the factual predicate for his [or her] claim.

Mary Payment v. Department of Transportation

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2017

This matter arose because defendant repeatedly passed plaintiff over for a promotion in favor of applicants plaintiff contends were less qualified. … As discussed, a display of poor business judgment is insufficient to establish a wrongful motive.

Robert Seay v. 21st Century Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2017

The provisions cited by [Covenant] do not establish that providers possess a claim under the act. … However, the findings must be able to survive review under the clearly-erroneous standard.

People of Michigan v. Anthony Childs

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 15, 2025

Jeffries was not qualified as an expert. … Childs is clearly a violent criminal offender. His sentence was not cruel or unusual. 3.

Robert Seay v. 21st Century Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2017

The provisions cited by [Covenant] do not establish that providers possess a claim under the act. … However, the findings must be able to survive review under the clearly-erroneous standard.

People v. Morgan Clark

68 Mich. App. 674 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 17, 1976

The auto in the present case was disabled, without a driver, possibly legitimately impounded, [8] but clearly not subject to statutory forfeiture. … Subsequent interpretations of the case indicate that the Supreme Court did not require that defendant qualify under all three tests; defendant need only come under (a), (b), or (c) to have standing.

Wendell David Lawrence v. Linda Sharyn Delisse Lawrence

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2025

Her health issues included knee and leg problems, vertigo, and immune system issues. … this finding was clearly erroneous.

Basem Komis v. Kimberly R Basehart-Gaetano

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 2021

that provides immunity from civil liability for claims stemming from communication to certain governmental agencies or organizations “regarding any matter reasonably of concern to that agency or organization.” … The fourth category in the court’s ruling involved documents that would establish that Richard or Gaetano are “criminals.”

Jennifer Janssen-Rogers v. Dept of Environment Great Lakes and Ene

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2026

MCR 2.116(C)(7) authorizes a court to grant a motion for summary disposition on the basis of “release, payment, prior judgment, immunity granted by law, statute of limitations,[8] statute of frauds, an agreement to arbitrate … Therefore, the Supreme Court qualified the general rule by stating that “the contents of the complaint must be accepted as true unless specifically contradicted by the affidavits or other appropriate documentation submitted

People of Michigan v. Kevin Lionel Thompson Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 6, 2021

Therefore, they did not qualify as “testimonial” in nature. Accordingly, the admission of Lay’s statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause and were governed by MRE 804(b)(3). … These admissions clearly had a tendency to subject Lay to criminal liability under an aiding or abetting theory. See People v Bulls, 262 Mich App 618, 624-625; 687 NW2d 159 (2004).

People of Michigan v. Timothy Noel Johnson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2016

Defendant cites MRE 803(6), the business record exception to the hearsay rule, which requires “the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness.” … Additionally, the testimony presented clearly reflected that the guns in the photographs were not necessarily those found at the scene, and that is precisely what defense counsel argued to the jury.

People of Michigan v. James Rutherford Mell

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2014

So he was clearly in charge and knew what was going on . . . . … Defendant has not established a plain error affecting his substantial rights.

In Re Hogan Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2023

Glover explained that mother did not qualify for anything more than a one-bedroom apartment because she did not have her children with her. Mother also testified on her own behalf. … Therefore, we conclude the trial court’s finding that mother failed to rectify the conditions that led to adjudication, MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), was not clearly erroneous.

Gen-Wealth Inc v. Brian a Freckman

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 13, 2021

But, considering the totality of the evidence, the trial court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. … Under the plain language of this definition, information that does not derive value from being secret does not qualify as a trade secret.