Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,308 results
1.27s
Spectrum Health Hospitals v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2023
The nonmoving party cannot rely on mere allegations or denials in the pleadings to establish a question of fact. Id. … Portions of Coleman’s testimony clearly lacked confidence regarding specific aspects of Lockett’s use of the vehicle, however.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMichigan Court of Appeals · May 8, 2018
However, the CPS worker did not testify regarding any statements contained within the reports, and the record does not clearly establish that petitioner would not have been able to establish a foundation for the worker’s … Although this testimony qualifies as hearsay, respondent has made no attempt to explain how it affected her substantial rights.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedEpicurean Developments LLC v. Summit Township
Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2017
This standard regarding the substantial evidence test is the same as the familiar “clearly erroneous” standard. Id. … Plaintiffs did not request an exhaustive list of all uses that would qualify under the “clubs and lodges” category.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedIn Re Petition of Kent County Treasurer for Foreclosure
Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2025
Legislative intent can hardly be more clearly expressed. Respondents point to several purported ambiguities that they view as evidence of an alternate means of recovering excess proceeds. … MCL 211.78t(6) applies only to properties foreclosed or transferred before July 18, 2020, MCL 211.78t(1)(b)(ii), and it allows claimants to submit Form 5743 by “the March 31 at least 180 days after any qualified order.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedEpicurean Developments LLC v. Summit Township
Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2017
This standard regarding the substantial evidence test is the same as the familiar “clearly erroneous” standard. Id. … Plaintiffs did not request an exhaustive list of all uses that would qualify under the “clubs and lodges” category.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedTyrone Mullins v. Michigan Assigned Claims Plan
Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2019
“The establishment of a firm deadline prevents stale applications for leave to appeal; it forces the parties to raise claims of error while the participants still have a sound grasp of the facts and events surrounding the … Defendant filed its application for leave to appeal on October 23, 2017, which clearly fell outside this 21-day window.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMichigan Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 2016
Plaintiff’s testimony about reviewing the store’s credit card statement does not establish more than casual oversight. … However, her actions during this incident do not establish her regular involvement in the store’s management.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPeople of Michigan v. Kevin Robert Smith
Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2018
first impression that was not clearly foreshadowed. … Clearly, these are two very different questions.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPeople of Michigan v. Kevin Robert Smith
Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2018
first impression that was not clearly foreshadowed. … Clearly, these are two very different questions.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedRoselyn Ford v. Department of Health and Human Services
Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 2017
The trust was established by the Claimant’s spouse. The trust was established/amended on or after August 11, 1993. The trust was not established by will. … If Medicaid applicants have sufficient assets, income or insurance to pay for health care they do not qualify for the Medical Assistance program.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedRoselyn Ford v. Department of Health and Human Services
Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 2017
The trust was established by the Claimant’s spouse. The trust was established/amended on or after August 11, 1993. The trust was not established by will. … If Medicaid applicants have sufficient assets, income or insurance to pay for health care they do not qualify for the Medical Assistance program.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMichigan Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2019
When respondent-mother did not qualify for a parent partner, DHHS focused on providing a parenting coach for her. … In sum, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that clear and convincing evidence established grounds to terminate respondents’ parenting rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) because they “failed to demonstrate sufficient
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPeople of Michigan v. Richard Marquez
Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2018
Furthermore, there was no need for additional evidence beyond the testimony of the victim in the current case because her testimony could have established all the elements of CSC-II by itself. See MCL 750.520h. … Because the evidence supports the trial court’s factual finding, we conclude the trial court did not clearly err. Hardy, 494 Mich at 438.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMichigan Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2021
To be clearly erroneous, a trial court’s determination must be more than possibly or probably incorrect. In re Ellis, 294 Mich App 30, 33; 817 NW2d 111 (2011). … But the children were placed with their father and, as discussed, a parent does not qualify as a child’s “relative” for purposes of MCL 712A.13a(1)(j). In re Schadler, 315 Mich App at 413.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPeople of Michigan v. Braden Lee Reid
Michigan Court of Appeals · May 27, 2021
“We begin by examining the plain language of the statute; where that language is unambiguous, we presume that the Legislature intended the meaning clearly -2- expressed—no … This was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for OWI.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPeople of Michigan v. Richard Marquez
Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2018
Furthermore, there was no need for additional evidence beyond the testimony of the victim in the current case because her testimony could have established all the elements of CSC-II by itself. See MCL 750.520h. … Because the evidence supports the trial court’s factual finding, we conclude the trial court did not clearly err. Hardy, 494 Mich at 438.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPeople of Michigan v. Daniel Lee Bowman
Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2023
The trial court did not clearly err in assessing 50 points for OV 7. … “[M]ovement of a victim that is incidental to the commission of a crime nonetheless qualifies as asportation.” Id. at 17.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPeople of Michigan v. Stevie Golden
Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 2021
Nonetheless, because the court’s statement was clearly erroneous, defendant must establish that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings. Carines, 460 Mich at 763. … The defense strategy was clearly to establish that defendant was acting in self-defense. Thus, by acting in self-defense, defendant could have been acquitted of second-degree murder.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDurant v. STATE, DEPT. OF EDUC.
238 Mich. App. 185 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2000
They ignored the prohibition against unfunded mandates; they also ignored the local government claims review board that was established by Headlee. … The phrase “not to exceed $10.00 per pupil” clearly and unambiguously qualifies the scope of this duty by establishing a flexible ceiling on the amount of the subsection 31a(l) funding that may be used to reimburse plaintiffs
Cited 13 timesPublishedPeople of Michigan v. Robert Scott Knauss
Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 2017
In 2011, Skrzycki, under an immunity agreement, claimed that Knauss first shot Adamczak, followed by Peterson shooting Adamczak. … A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna