Case law

Dana Charis Fort v. Michael Skyler Fort

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2021

A qualified expert in business valuation valued Fortified Coatings’ at $302,000 and estimated that defendant’s income was $75,000 per year. … “A finding is clearly erroneous if the appellate court, on all the evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. at 629.

Spartan Specialties Ltd v. Senior Services Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2017

Most of plaintiff’s argument concerns why Whitaker was not qualified to give testimony about “foundation failures” and remediation of those failures. … Plaintiff claims that it is entitled to a new trial because the verdict was clearly or grossly inadequate. See MCR 2.611(A)(1)(d).

Soo Jin Kim v. Esencia Limited LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 13, 2026

Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment establishing that the lease was null and void because of mutual mistake and fraud in the inducement and an order requiring Esencia to return the $6,250 that plaintiffs had already … The statement that the lofts “go quick” is beyond objective proof because it reflects a subjective determination, especially when Edmondson did not qualify the statement with any benchmark.5 Edmondson’s assertion

People of Michigan v. Saad Arbabe

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2023

MRE 702 provides that witnesses who are qualified as experts in a field may testify regarding their opinions on matters related to that field. … It would be difficult to imagine testimony that more clearly and severely violates the “very straight forward bright-line test”7 articulated and applied by the Supreme Court in Smith, Peterson, Thorpe, and Uribe.

Comerica Bank v. Pars Ice Cream Company Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2018

The Mohammed guaranty is clearly not limited to the indebtedness under the Tumbleweed note. … Specifically, 12 CFR 1002.7(d) provides, in pertinent part: (1) Rule for qualified applicant.

Pantall Gallup LLC v. Mohamad Alnouri

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2014

The trial court clearly considered that the documents requested by defendants were missing such that spoliation occurred. … Clearly, then, nothing had changed.

20250212_C368257_33_368257.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2025

The critical deficiency in the prosecution’s case is that there was no evidence establishing that someone delivered the shed and its contents to defendant. … The test results were clearly relevant under MRE 401, as they established that defendant’s BAC was 0.165 and conclusively proved his intoxication, see MCL 257.625(1)(b), which is a disputed element of OWI, see MCL 257.625

People of Michigan v. Mohamed Ghassam Bayram

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2020

This finding is not clearly erroneous, and on appeal defendant does not contest the court’s findings. … In Sours, however, this Court qualified its description for when OV 19 is to be scored by the word “generally.” Id.

In Re Bachman Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2023

We note that LaShawn Strickland, who holds a “limited license master of social work[],” was qualified as an expert in “counseling for foster care/CPS cases” earlier in the proceedings. … A finding is clearly erroneous if, even if some evidence supports it, the reviewing court is nevertheless left with the firm and definite conviction that the lower court made a mistake. Id.

People of Michigan v. Nasir Lamont Banks

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 2015

Jury instructions do not qualify as erroneous if they fairly present to the jury the issues to be tried and sufficiently protect the defendant’s rights. People v Knapp, 244 Mich App 361, 376; 624 NW2d 227 (2001). … Ample, properly admitted evidence established defendant’s guilt, including the eyewitness identification testimony by S.J. and A.B.

People of Michigan v. Delilah Sherwood Evans

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2020

But when it repeatedly transgresses well-established boundaries, an improper cross-examination denies a defendant a fair trial. The prosecutor’s interrogation of one of the experts in this case, Dr. … notice of an intention to assert the defense of insanity, a court shall order the defendant to undergo an examination relating to his or her claim of insanity by personnel of the center for forensic psychiatry or by other qualified

Mouhajer Development v. Estate of Dario Tomei

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 2017

“[S]trict necessity is required to establish an easement by necessity.”4 Id. at 45. … Instead, “[u]se of another's property qualifies as adverse when made under a claim of right when no right exists.” Id.

Mouhajer Development v. Estate of Dario Tomei

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 2017

“[S]trict necessity is required to establish an easement by necessity.”4 Id. at 45. … Instead, “[u]se of another's property qualifies as adverse when made under a claim of right when no right exists.” Id.

Travis Strasser v. Oakwood Heritage Hospital

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2021

Plaintiff contended that he “clearly and specifically informed all Defendants that he did not want any spinal or regional blocks for post-operative pain control.” (Emphasis omitted.) … “Failure to establish any one of these four elements is fatal to a plaintiff's medical malpractice suit.” Estate of Horn, __ Mich App at __; slip op at 4 (citation omitted).

People of Michigan v. Michael Wayne Hughes

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2023

It is well established that jurors are presumed to have followed their instructions. People v Breidenbach, 489 Mich 1, 13; 798 NW2d 738 (2011). … “There is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent which holds that a state violates due process by permitting propensity evidence in the form of other bad acts evidence.”

Jon Jon's Inc v. City of Warren

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2017

these establishments per population in the municipality, and the market demand for opening such enterprises.” … First, plaintiffs argue that Katopodes was not qualified to render expert opinion testimony under MRE 702.

People of Michigan v. Donvelle Tyrone Nichols

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2016

We therefore conclude that defendant’s second or subsequent offenses of possession of marijuana qualify as felonies within the meaning of MCL 761.1(g). … That definition clearly evidences a legislative intent to include as felonies, for purposes of the Code, those “violations of penal law” for which the “offender,” upon conviction, may be punished by imprisonment for more

Sefika Ademi v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2015

We also review for clear error a trial court’s finding whether a communication qualified as a reasonable proof of the fact or amount of loss. Williams, 250 Mich App at 265. … Statutes are presumed to apply prospectively unless the Legislature clearly manifests the intent for retroactive application.

in Re Hill Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2016

Marie Band of Chippewa Indians determined that the children were not members and did not qualify for membership; therefore, the children did not qualify under the MIFPA. … A decision qualifies as clearly erroneous when, “although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

Otis Holt v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2021

The court found that she “clearly understood that she had the choice of being terminated or resigning.” Id. … Plaintiff is correct that the City, specifically its Fire Department, qualifies as a public service. See Gazette, 212 Mich App at 169.