Case law

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. Mary Ann Stafford

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 2017

Defendants moved before trial to qualify Woonton as an expert witness and the court qualified him as an expert in mortgage procedures. … In Hana, 447 Mich at 346, our Supreme Court explained that “[s]everance is mandated under MCR 6.121(C) only when a defendant provides the court with a supporting affidavit, or makes an offer of proof, that clearly, affirmatively

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

Matthew J Krieg v. Katherine a Baleja

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2022

While defendant concedes some of the child’s statements were not hearsay, she argues that other statements did qualify as hearsay. … Defendant’s argument is clearly contradicted by the record and there is no plain error on this basis. V.

Howell Promenade LLC v. City of Howell

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2015

Petitioner claims that the Tribunal’s ultimate finding on the property’s true cash value was not supported by substantial evidence because the evidence clearly establishes that the … There was no evidence introduced that established that each dollar of needed repair costs results in a like reduction in market value.

Howell Promenade LLC v. City of Howell

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2015

Petitioner claims that the Tribunal’s ultimate finding on the property’s true cash value was not supported by substantial evidence because the evidence clearly establishes that the … There was no evidence introduced that established that each dollar of needed repair costs results in a like reduction in market value.

People of Michigan v. Derrius Alphonzo Haynes

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 9, 2019

At that point, the trial court told defense counsel that he “need[ed] to look over this[,]” clearly referencing the model instruction for involuntary manslaughter. … The degree of negligence needed to establish this form of involuntary manslaughter is gross negligence.

Matthew James Krieg v. Katherine Ann Krieg

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2021

evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction. … Pamela Ludolph, a clinical and forensic psychologist, who was qualified as an expert in “child development and child psychology with an emphasis . . . regarding attachment in young children.” Dr.

Pellie Mae Norton-Cantrell v. Anthony Bzura Trust Agreement

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2018

Plaintiff filed a timely appeal from the probate court’s May 25, 2017 order granting defendant summary disposition, which qualifies as a final order. MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i). … Clearly, we have jurisdiction to consider whether the trial court erred in deciding to impose sanctions.

Majid Damghani v. City of Kentwood

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2019

In sum, the trial court did not clearly err by rejecting plaintiff’s assertion that a triggering event occurred before March 2014. … SLANDER OF TITLE Finally, plaintiff argued in his appellate brief that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition regarding his slander of title claim on the basis of governmental immunity.

Dept of Environment Great Lakes and Energy v. Robert L Brotherton

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2023

Brotherton’s bare allegations, denials, and arguments, without supporting record evidence were insufficient to establish a genuine issue of fact for trial. MCR 2.116(G)(4). … “A litigant’s mere pledge to establish an issue of fact at trial cannot survive summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).

Brenda Ealey v. Benjigates Estates LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2016

material fact, the omission of which tended to mislead or deceive, see MCL 445.903(1)(s), and asserted that the parties entered into a consumer transaction in which she waived or purported to waive a right, benefit, or immunity … It is also notable that the land contract addendum, which Ealey signed, indicated that she acknowledged that “ample time has been allotted for contract review and consultation by qualified legal counsel[]” and that she expressed

W a Foote Memorial Hospital v. Michigan Assigned Claims Plan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2017

Plaintiff further argues that Covenant satisfies the initial threshold question for determining whether prospective application is warranted, i.e., “whether the decision clearly established a new principle of law.” … Covenant did not “clearly establish[] a new principle of law,” Pohutski, 465 Mich at 696, because MCL 500.3112 at no time provided plaintiff with a right of action against defendants, and the intervening caselaw from this

People of Michigan v. Ryan James Murdock

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2018

Accordingly, the trial court’s factual finding that the victim suffered a serious psychological injury was not clearly erroneous, and was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. … Movement of a victim that is incidental to the commission of an offense qualifies as asportation within the meaning of MCL 777.38(1)(a).

John Doe 1 v. Department of Corrections

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2015

“Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and we have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.” … It is well established that “prisoners” are not a suspect class. See People v Groff, 204 Mich App 727, 731; 516 NW2d 532 (1994).

John Doe 1 v. Department of Corrections

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2015

“Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and we have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.” … It is well established that “prisoners” are not a suspect class. See People v Groff, 204 Mich App 727, 731; 516 NW2d 532 (1994).

Creative Arts Center Rockford v. City of Rockford

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2018

As a tax exempt nonprofit corporation, CACR qualified for and obtained state funded grants. As an extension of the city government, the AAC lacked the qualifications to apply for and receive such grants. … Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where no evidentiary support exists or if this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

Rita Walsh v. Marc Sakwa Md

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2019

The trial court clearly considered MCL 600.2955 satisfied, but it never explained how. … Samuels’ proposed standard of care, and whether this establishes that Dr. Samuels’ opinion was “generally accepted within the relevant expert community.” MCL 600.2599(1)(e).

Scott P Gyorke v. Shelly B Gyorke

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2017

“In a divorce action, this Court reviews for clear error a trial court’s factual findings on the division of marital property and whether a particular asset qualifies as marital or separate property.” … “Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Woodington v Shokoohi, 288 Mich App 352, 357; 792 NW2d 63 (2010).

Jan Akervall v. Marilyn S Gooding

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2021

“A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” … “An owner of an easement cannot displace the possessor or the owner of the land, but . . . has a qualified right to possession” to the extent necessary for enjoyment of the easement.