Case law

Oakwood Ypsi Limited Partnership v. George M Nyman

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 2026

The three limited partnerships were established in the 1990s for the purpose of owning and operating three different apartment complexes in Michigan. … Their lack of consent to refinancing does not excuse Nyman’s violation of § 5.4A, which clearly laid out what actions were prohibited for general partners to take unilaterally. Edmore, 322 Mich App at 263.

Arrington v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp.

196 Mich. App. 544 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1992

Clearly it was within the discretion of the trial court to grant an extension of time; and since the court heard and disposed of the motion on its merits, it should be considered that the court in effect extended the time … The next step in the appellate analysis is usually to cite a rule of law that qualifies and limits this grant of discretion to the trial court in an attempt to more precisely explain the real standard to be employed.

People of Michigan v. Tonia Joyce Miller

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2020

As a threshold matter, Miller’s eligibility for relief from judgment hinges on whether she can establish that the evidence on which she relies qualifies as newly discovered, and good cause for failing to raise the possibility … The trial court clearly erred by relying on testimony from another case to reject that the SBS/AHT controversy recognized in the caselaw constitutes new evidence in this case.

People of Michigan v. Joshua Scott Morrison

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2016

Defendant has not shown that the trial court clearly erred in assessing 50 points for OV 7. C. … The trial court did not clearly err in scoring 15 points for OV 10. Affirmed. /s/ Michael J.

in Re Day Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2017

was clearly inadmissible. … Therefore, Day has not established that the statement qualifies as inadmissible hearsay. Moreover, Dr. Nelson did not testify that Day accompanied KED to the ER on October 5, and he did not attribute the statement to Day

in Re Day Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2017

was clearly inadmissible. … Therefore, Day has not established that the statement qualifies as inadmissible hearsay. Moreover, Dr. Nelson did not testify that Day accompanied KED to the ER on October 5, and he did not attribute the statement to Day

In Re MCI Telecommunications Corp. Complaint

240 Mich. App. 292 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2000

Thus, MCI’s allegations involved matters integral to the administrative scheme established by the mta. … We “ordinarily defer[] to the construction of a statute by the agency charged with applying it unless the interpretation is ‘clearly wrong.’ ” Id.

People of Michigan v. Anthony Ray McFarlane Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2018

Further, it does not matter that the finder of fact must make multiple inferences to establish these elements. … The trial court clearly erred to the extent that it relied on the evidence of a leg fracture in scoring this variable.

Johnathan Myers v. Board of Hospital Managers for City of Flint

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2024

Hoesel and Metro Acute’s motion for summary disposition for lack of proximate causation, reasoning that Riehl wanted to administer hyaluronidase, but “the record clearly reflects [Dr. … Philp had a matching specialty in general surgery that qualified him to testify as plaintiff’s standard of care expert under MCL 600.2169(1)(b).

In Re Humphrey Estate

141 Mich. App. 412 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 1985

Humphrey established a revocable inter vivos trust (hereinafter Thirty Trust), which consisted primarily of stock in two businesses owned by Humphrey and his brother. … Here, however, the issue sought to be barred relates directly to the account, and, therefore, is clearly distinguishable from Green, supra, and MacKenzie, supra .

Alexander Figurski v. Trinity Health-Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2016

GENERAL REVIEW OF THE LAW ON EXPERT TESTIMONY In order to establish a cause of action for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) the appropriate standard of care governing … These issues are clearly beyond the realm of the average lay person.

Timothy Copacia v. Martin Ginzinger

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2016

formed in accordance with the Michigan Limited Liability Company Act, MCL 450.4101, et seq., to own a parcel of undeveloped land in Oakland Township and develop it into a residential site condominium development, later established … The purported oral agreement between the parties to evenly split the Wynridge development costs and expenses clearly falls within the language of MCL 450.4302(1).

In Re Conservatorship of David P Vanpoppelen

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2022

If persons have equal priority, the court shall select the person the court considers best qualified to serve. … The probate court’s finding that appellant and Wyatt lacked sufficient sophistication to manage David’s finances is not clearly erroneous.

Jeffrey Eisenberg v. George W Kuhn Drainage District

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2026

Summary disposition is warranted under MCR 2.116(C)(8) only “where the claims alleged are so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Id. … However, this argument would be an affirmative defense because it “does not controvert the plaintiff’s establishing a prima facie case, but . . . otherwise denies relief to the plaintiff.”

Gary R Hund v. Natalie T Hund

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 2017

However, the burden of persuasion for the movant differs if the proposed change in custody alters any established custodial environment.9 If the proposed change would not alter any established custodial environment, then … Regarding the immunizations, the court found that plaintiff was in favor of getting OMH immunized, but defendant was against it.

Fremont Insurance Company v. Gro-Green Farms Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 2016

Moreover, his experience in the field could qualify him as an expert witness. MRE 702. … In regard to these issues, we opine that plaintiffs have established a question of fact.

Estate of Michael Travis Errett v. a Forever Recovery Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 30, 2017

Except as expressly provided for in sections 2957, 2958, and 2959, enactment of these sections did not “eliminate or diminish a defense or immunity” that existed at the time of the enactment. MCL 600.2957(3). … In fact, MCL 600.2957(3) ensures the rule’s survival by stressing that codification of comparative negligence did not “eliminate or diminish” preexisting defenses or immunities.

People of Michigan v. Amber Lynn Wilson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2015

In light of the information in the PSIR, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that a preponderance of the evidence established that a “permanent incapacitating injury occurred to a victim.” … The trial court did not clearly err in assessing five points for OV 10.

People of Michigan v. Antonio Lewis

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2015

Although the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to the trial court’s determination of whether a waiver of counsel qualifies as intelligent and knowing, less clear is the standard of review applicable to the trial … and distinctly prior to the beginning of his trial, the right of self-representation becomes qualified once trial is under way.

People of Michigan v. Furquan Michael-Deshawn Knox

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2025

The trial court qualified her, without objection, as an expert in the areas of child sexual abuse and the dynamics surrounding disclosure of that abuse. … Defendant has failed to establish a basis for challenging Welke’s testimony under Daubert.