Case law

People 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.

People 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.

People 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.

In Re watkins/munson/williams Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2022

Kathy Spatafora, a clinical psychologist, was qualified as an expert witness for the best interest hearing. Spatafora conducted psychological evaluations of TLW and MDM. … Because one statutory basis for termination was established by clear and convincing evidence, this Court need not address MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) or (i).

People of Michigan v. Willie Lee Wimberly

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2015

Therefore, defendant has not established a plain error. … argument is insufficient to establish a plain error

20250122_C367262_26_367262D.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2025

I do not believe the petition qualifies to be that document because it is the document that is required to obtain the order that simply allows you to presume she has the ability to sell it, not the document that enters her … “The necessity of a written authorization in order to bind an individual . . . to the terms of a purchase agreement signed by a third party . . . is clearly set forth in the statute of frauds.”

People of Michigan v. Jimmie Young

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 25, 2023

In sum, the trial court’s overall finding that defendant made a knowing waiver of his Miranda rights was not clearly erroneous. … Like in Granderson, the statement was made regarding the future need for an attorney, which does not qualify as a request for counsel. Granderson, 212 Mich App at 677.

People 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

Van Buren Public School District v. Wayne Circuit Judge

61 Mich. App. 6 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 27, 1975

It clearly and unmistakably instructed Van Burén to insure that the union members were employed as bus drivers. Its terms were sufficiently specific and detailed to inform Van Burén of this. … Qualified school districts receive compensation from the state for the cost of transportation. MCLA 388.621; MSA 15.1919(61).

Song Yu v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2017

The policy clearly contemplates that a policyholder will have “one family dwelling” in which it will live in permanently or for an extended period of time and that is home that is intended to qualify as the residence premises … In Morales v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 458 Mich 288, 296-297; 582 NW2d 776 (1998), our Supreme Court stated that with respect to insurance contracts, plaintiff must establish “(1) that the defendant's acts or representations induced

Oak Flint LLC v. City of Berkley

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2023

According to plaintiff, the purpose of the purchase of 27723 Woodward and the agreement for the adjacent lot was to facilitate the operation of “a medical marijuana provisioning center and an adult-use marijuana establishment … Under that court rule, summary disposition is proper “because of release, payment, prior judgment, immunity granted by law, statute of limitations, statute of frauds, an agreement to arbitrate or to litigate in a different

Kimberley Hicks v. Adriza Caesar

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2023

“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. … This requires the plaintiff to establish that: (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) she was qualified for the position; and (4) she was treated differently than similarly

Rodney Woods v. City of Saginaw

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 7, 2021

Moreover, the Court of Appeals clearly erred by engaging in appellate fact-finding when it stated that the plaintiff had been “fairly compensated.” … “Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact, but mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient.”

Cherisse Withers v. Sentinel Insurance Company Limited

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 2023

Progressive asserts that the release was irrelevant under MRE 402 and not admissible to establish liability or invalidity of the claim under MRE 408. … Additionally, the release clearly indicates that plaintiff did not release future medical benefit claims resulting from the 2010 accident occurring after May 21, 2012.

People of Michigan v. Kizzy Nickerson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2019

In order to present evidence related to insanity at trial, a defendant must provide at least 30 days’ written notice and submit to a court- ordered examination by a qualified professional. … Clearly, the trial court did not preclude defendant from presenting any defense allowed under the laws of this state and defendant did not argue below, and does not argue here, that there was any other proper purpose for

Song Yu v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2017

The policy clearly contemplates that a policyholder will have “one family dwelling” in which it will live in permanently or for an extended period of time and that is home that is intended to qualify as the residence premises … In Morales v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 458 Mich 288, 296-297; 582 NW2d 776 (1998), our Supreme Court stated that with respect to insurance contracts, plaintiff must establish “(1) that the defendant's acts or representations induced

Sandra Parker v. Dearborn Public Schools

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 2019

action, (3) she was qualified for the position, and (4) she was replaced by a younger person.” … MCL 380.1231(1) provides: [T]he board of a school district shall hire and contract with qualified teachers.

20230120_C360119_47_360119.Opn.Ord.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 2023

Progressive asserts that the release was irrelevant under MRE 402 and not admissible to establish liability or invalidity of the claim under MRE 408. … Additionally, the release clearly indicates that plaintiff did not release future medical benefit claims resulting from the 2010 accident occurring after May 21, 2012.

People of Michigan v. Jimmie Young

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 25, 2023

In sum, the trial court’s overall finding that defendant made a knowing waiver of his Miranda rights was not clearly erroneous. … Like in Granderson, the statement was made regarding the future need for an attorney, which does not qualify as a request for counsel. Granderson, 212 Mich App at 677.

People of Michigan v. Kizzy Nickerson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2019

In order to present evidence related to insanity at trial, a defendant must provide at least 30 days’ written notice and submit to a court- ordered examination by a qualified professional. … Clearly, the trial court did not preclude defendant from presenting any defense allowed under the laws of this state and defendant did not argue below, and does not argue here, that there was any other proper purpose for