Case law

Erma Rogers Revocable Trust v. Erickson Retirement Communities

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2017

Rather, it clearly considered evidence beyond the pleadings to find that class certification was appropriate. Such an analysis is consistent with Henry, and we find no error. … Defendants instead focus on whether plaintiff is qualified to act as a class representative.

People of Michigan v. Alan Lawrence Witt

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2017

Again, under Hartwick merely possessing a card is not enough to establish prima facie evidence of this element. … This finding was not clearly erroneous.

People of Michigan v. Anthony Ron Trombino IV

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2015

“The burden of establishing perception rests with the proponent of the evidence.” Kent, 157 Mich App at 788. … This instruction emphasized the jury’s role as the fact-finder and clearly stated that the expert’s opinions were not dispositive as to whether defendant committed the charged offense.

Humphrey v. Detroit Bank & Trust Co.

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.

Donald Nolen v. Mark Patrick Hastings

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2016

This claimed impairment is continuing or ongoing and remains to discomfort McDanield following the injury; therefore, it qualifies as a “residual” impairment. … Finally, the McCormick Court clearly stated that the statute does not provide for a temporal limitation regarding how long an impairment must endure before it can have an impact on a person’s “general ability to live his

Erma Rogers Revocable Trust v. Erickson Retirement Communities

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2017

Rather, it clearly considered evidence beyond the pleadings to find that class certification was appropriate. Such an analysis is consistent with Henry, and we find no error. … Defendants instead focus on whether plaintiff is qualified to act as a class representative.

Darcy Weidman v. Home-Owners Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2026

party accused of violating the statute has established a legally sufficient excuse.” … Therefore, in this context, Bardo’s vehicle—when plaintiff encountered it—could reasonably qualify as wholly unexpected.

in Re Cameron Lawrence Dann

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 21, 2019

“Findings of fact by the trial court may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous[,] . . . … The record plainly reflects that the court did not so find; the box was clearly checked in error.

Paula Dowker v. Richmond Community Schools

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 2018

In turn: MCR 2.116(C)(7) provides for summary disposition when a claim is barred because of . . . immunity granted by law . . . … “The fact that a plaintiff engages in a ‘protected activity’ under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act does not immunize him from an otherwise legitimate, or unrelated, adverse job action.”

Carol Beth Litkouhi v. Rochester Community School District

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2024

Litkouhi acknowledged that some materials were exempt from disclosure, asserting, however, that Rochester had not established the applicability of an exemption. … “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.

In Re Rev Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2022

She opined and stated that the placement constituted an extremely appropriate home environment, that REV was receiving love and affection by the pre-adoptive family, that REV was healthy and her immunizations were fully up … Respondent further maintains that the court’s findings on the best-interest factors were clearly erroneous.

Kendra Nicole McMurphy v. Alexander Paz

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2024

Under this standard, this Court defers to the trial court’s findings of fact unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction. Id. … Defendant also argues that his distrust of plaintiff’s judgment qualifies as proper cause or a change in circumstances. We disagree.

People of Michigan v. Curtis Coleman Glaspie

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2015

We will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. “A finding is clearly erroneous if it leaves this Court with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” … Defendant’s use of the word “though” qualifies the assertion of the right, rendering it equivocal. “Though” is defined as “however” or “nevertheless.” Merriam- Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (2014).

Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan v. Darrell Jones

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 12, 2022

As to the Joneses, Farm Bureau alleged that the events underlying the federal action did not qualify as a covered “occurrence[s]” because Darrell’s acts were “intentional,” not “accident[al].” … The federal complaint clearly alleges that Darrell intended to sexually discriminate against and harass his female tenants.

Teresa Karsney v. City of Burton

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2023

The court found that “Burton’s reasons have a basis in fact, they clearly were the actual reasons for suspension, and outright forgery of a deed being tolerated by the Clerk of the City of Burton to benefit a friend and fellow … But “[t]he fact that a plaintiff engages in a “protected activity” under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act does not immunize him from an otherwise legitimate, or unrelated, adverse job action.”

Jane Doe v. Unnamed School District

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2019

The letters refer to the Student by first name, but only in the context of establishing parameters for plaintiffs’ presence on the elementary school property. … In order to qualify for exemption under this provision, the record must involve information “of a personal nature” which, if disclosed, would be a “clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.”

Od Cleveland Stegall v. Resource Technology Corporation

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2023

Nor will we extend a statute by implication to abrogate established rules of common law.” Id. … -6- on MCL 333.20176a, in which “the Legislature clearly expressed a desire to further [public] policy by prohibiting retaliation against an employee who reports malpractice

Asia Anderson v. Jennifer L Tracy Rn

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 2018

However, “in addition to satisfying the requirements of MCL 600.2169(1)(a) and (b), a plaintiff must [also] affirmatively establish that his or her proffered expert is ‘qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience … Chugani previously worked for Genesys was irrelevant to any of the issues presented at trial, but the erroneous admission of this evidence was clearly harmless. Dr.

Asia Anderson v. Jennifer L Tracy Rn

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 2018

However, “in addition to satisfying the requirements of MCL 600.2169(1)(a) and (b), a plaintiff must [also] affirmatively establish that his or her proffered expert is ‘qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience … Chugani previously worked for Genesys was irrelevant to any of the issues presented at trial, but the erroneous admission of this evidence was clearly harmless. Dr.

People of Michigan v. Cody Allan Spencer

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2023

“[T]o qualify as a ‘domestic relationship,’ there must be a familial or cohabitating relationship.” People v Jamison, 292 Mich App 440, 447; 807 NW2d 427 (2011). … The record establishes that there were two previous incidents of domestic violence between defendant and KD during their five-year relationship.