Case law

People v. Sabin

236 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 1999

In Hoffman , we affirmed a ruling of the trial court that admitted other-acts evidence for the purpose of establishing the defendant's motive to commit the crime. … proffered evidence will serve, that is, the basis for its relevancy, that will dictate its requisite character. * * * * * * "Relevant evidence under Rule 404(b) should, therefore, not always be excluded because it does not qualify

Barbara J Wamsley v. James D Martin

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2018

The claimant must establish acquiescence by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. … At issue is whether defendants’ boat hoist qualifies as a “structure” under this provision.

People of Michigan v. Radu Vasile Muntean

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2018

MCL 768.27b clearly applies to the facts at bar here,1 and consequently the only relevant inquiry is whether the “other acts” evidence was inadmissible under MRE 403. … Thus, defendant cannot establish a reasonable probability that an accident instruction would have changed the jury’s verdict.

People of Michigan v. Michael Ryan Weinstein

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2021

The circuit court’s failure to make this finding was clearly erroneous. MCR 2.613(C). [Walton, 176 Mich App at 825-826.] … The trial court clearly erred in finding otherwise.” Abrams, 204 Mich App at 672-673.

People of Michigan v. Rachel Fluegge

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2016

The evidence was also relevant to establish Fluegge’s intent. … The jury’s verdict is not clearly against the great weight of the evidence. B.

Michael Maurice Lynch v. Lisa Marie Lynch

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2023

Plaintiff appeals by right from the judgment of separate maintenance and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered by the trial court after a two-day evidentiary hearing. … When a property division is established by agreement of the parties, “a court’s task is to determine the parties’ intent as manifested in their agreement through application of principles of contract construction.”

People of Michigan v. Matthew Lee Robinson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2019

Eller also “said there were other crimes that he and Grantham were involved in but he would not talk about those unless he was granted immunity.” … “A mere difference in judicial opinion does not establish an abuse of discretion.” Id. B.

Kimberly Kaminsky v. Matthew Rontal Md

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 2020

It is beyond question that “testimony that only establishes a correlation between conduct and injury is not sufficient to establish cause in fact.” Teal v Prasad, 283 Mich App 384, 392; 772 NW2d 57 (2009). … It is insufficient for expert testimony to merely establish a correlation between conduct and an injury for purposes of establishing causation in a medical malpractice action. Teal, 283 Mich App at 392.

People of Michigan v. Shikisha Monet Tidmore

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2021

Therefore, defense counsel clearly had some idea that Campbell would testify about the data taken from the event data recorder and that Dr. Kuslikis would testify about defendant’s toxicology results. … The record also shows that the experts were each qualified by education, experience, and training to offer expert opinions in their respective fields. See MRE 702. Dr.

in Re Ljn

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 2015

She planned to take time off under the Family Medical Leave Act to establish a daily routine with the child. … Here, at the time of the best interest ruling, Farmer had not yet legally established paternity and remained LJN’s putative father.

Barbara J Wamsley v. James D Martin

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2018

The claimant must establish acquiescence by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. … At issue is whether defendants’ boat hoist qualifies as a “structure” under this provision.

People of Michigan v. Howard Leroy McManamy

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2015

Portions of the exhibit that qualified as more prejudicial than probative could and should have been excluded from admission. … As to the larceny case, the error clearly was not harmless. We evaluate the erroneous admission of defendant’s conviction details under the standard applicable to preserved, nonconstitutional error.

Estate of Andrew Kowalski v. Prime Healthcare Services Garden City

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2024

Kattoo and PHS thus depends upon the establishment of an ostensible agency relationship. … The patient consent form did not clearly inform the decedent that Dr. Kattoo was not an employee of the hospital, which is especially true where Dr.

People of Michigan v. Robin Lynn Root

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2017

explained that suppressing a confession subsequently made on that basis alone would come at too high a cost: This Court has never held that the psychological impact of voluntary disclosure of a guilty secret qualifies … Even accepting that the incriminating statements that Root made after 4:35 p.m. were admissible, those later statements do not clearly establish the mens rea for either first-degree premeditated murder or second- degree murder

Gerard Trudel v. City of Allen Park

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 2018

“Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) is proper when the defendant’s pleadings are so clearly untenable that as 2 Plaintiff attempts to avoid this conclusion by focusing on certain language in this Court’s previous … Despite this Court’s clear and unequivocal holding in Trudel I, unpub op at 15-17, that those claims were barred by governmental immunity as a matter of law, plaintiff refused to stipulate to their dismissal.

People of Michigan v. Joseph Henry Abare

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2016

When a court “clearly err[s] in finding that a preponderance of the evidence supported one or more of the OVs or otherwise erred in applying the facts to the OVs, People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430, 438; 835 NW2d 340 (2013), and … This evidence sufficed to establish by a preponderance that defendant committed a felonious domestic assault in 2009.

People of Michigan v. David William Gray

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2026

The charged offenses and the other acts involving defendant’s sister all qualify as listed offenses against a minor. See MCL 768.27a(2). … Defendant’s sister clearly provided testimony that was harmful to the defense.

Stewart Knoepp Md v. Iha Health Services Corporation Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2023

Plaintiff argued that because he had already established a breach, all that was left for him to prove was the quantum of damages. … Even assuming that plaintiff’s conduct did qualify as a for-cause reason for termination under § 9(a)(ii), defendant was not obligated to utilize for-cause termination.

Robert Davis v. Secretary of State

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2024

Despite clearly receiving more than $1,000 in campaign contributions for the 2022 election cycle, on July 20, 2022, Mr. … Burton’s candidate committee clearly received and/or expended more than $1,000 during the 2022 election cycle, the reporting waiver Mr.

J S Evangelista Development LLC v. Apco Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2023

Defendant does not dispute that the order of dismissal qualifies as a final order under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i). … -8-  More generally, plaintiff has not established the elements of either a statutory or common- law conversion claim.