Case law

People of Michigan v. John Thomas Balenda II

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 21, 2025

However, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, there was sufficient evidence to establish that Balenda acted with intent to inflict great bodily harm. … When assessing 50 points for OV 7, the trial court stated: So, the testimony from the trial was that things in the bedroom were broken, the TV was thrown off, the door was broken, clearly there was a lot

In Re Wallace Howe Family Trust

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 2022

The probate court did not clearly err by finding that appellant’s admissions established that he violated the February 11, 2019 order. … If no trustee has qualified, the interested persons are the qualified trust beneficiaries described in MCL 700.7103(g)(i) and the nominated trustee, if any.”

People of Michigan v. Isaac Alexander

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2021

-21-  decisional act entitled to immunity. [Zavala v Zinser, 420 Mich 567, 659-660; 363 NW2d 641 (1984).] … When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly

Municipal Employees Retirement System v. David Halstead

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 20, 2021

Ordinance 3823, the July 19, 2012 resolution and the subsequent agreements clearly establish that MERS is now solely responsible for the administration of the retirement system. … “Under established contract principles, vested retirement rights may not be altered without the pensioner’s consent.”

Melinda Fay Townsend v. Dennis William Townsend

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2025

A finding is clearly erroneous if, after reviewing the entire record, we are firmly convinced that the trial court made a mistake. Id. … Given the short work history, Plaintiff will not likely qualify for Social Security benefits.

Littrell Williams-Inner v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 12, 2015

Williams-Inner stated that she had not retained any “outside independent experts,” but argued that the treating physicians identified in her witness list could be presented as expert witnesses if the court found them qualified … Williams-Inner was clearly aware of this issue, and was not denied an opportunity to fairly litigate it.

People v. Joker

63 Mich. App. 421 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 1975

The Constitution of 1963, art 6, § 5 provides in relevant part: "The supreme court shall by general rules establish, modify, amend and simplify the practice and procedure in all courts of this state." … This conflict between the statute and the rule raises the question of the extent to which a local court rule, approved by the Supreme Court, may abrogate or qualify an existing statute."

Mary Sparling v. John R Sparling

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2022

This argument, however, again ignores the plain words of the statute, which clearly focuses on the time period immediately preceding the settlor’s death, not after. … To read the statute otherwise would render the term “revocable” surplusage, as the qualifier would be unnecessary under John’s interpretation.

People of Michigan v. Robert James Carter

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2018

It was therefore clearly a matter of trial strategy to determine that it was best not to present that testimony and instead to attempt to establish the duress defense through defendant’s own testimony, and this Court does … In order to qualify under the exclusion for statements by a coconspirator, the proponent of the statements must establish three things.

People of Michigan v. Stan Jamario-Deneke Blockton

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 23, 2017

Defendant primarily argues that the search of his vehicle was illegal because it did not qualify under the exception for searches incident to an arrest. … He also briefly states, without citing any authority, that the search did not qualify under any other exception to the warrant requirement.

People of Michigan v. Walter Jemison

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2025

BACKGROUND AND FACTS Trial testimony established that the shooting at issue in this case occurred on the night of August 20, 2021. … Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had a premeditated intent to kill.

Patrick-Joseph Groulx v. Rashid Iqbal

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 2024

MEDICAID FALSE CLAIMS ACT In contrast, some of plaintiff’s claims clearly do not sound in medical malpractice. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. … He contends that these qualified as notices of intent.7 Plaintiff sent his letter to Gransden on November 11, 2022, but there is no evidence or allegation that Gransden had any involvement with plaintiff’s care after November

People of Michigan v. Kenneth Wayne Jenkins

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2018

Despite defendant’s arguments, this factor clearly weighs in favor of admissibility. … Moreover, the trial court clearly agreed with the prosecutor’s analysis of the Watkins factors, stating that the prosecutor “has established, in this case, grounds for the Court granting the motion.”

Zegary Allen v. Joyce Bogan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2026

This finding was not clearly erroneous. By defendant’s own testimony, plaintiff used his income to pay for groceries and then allowed her to spend about $1,000 each month for household expenses. … The fact that this system continued both before and after the marriage broke down implied that it was a well-established, informal agreement.

People of Michigan v. Isaac Lawrence Bowling

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 2018

Clearly, Sims had no firsthand knowledge regarding who broke into the Chesaning house and was only relaying what Wheaton had told him. … -8-  Now, whether these facts are sufficient to qualify as predatory conduct under MCL 777.40(1)(a) is a separate question.

Eci Environmental Consultants & Engineers v. House of Providence

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2026

But this Court’s established preservation rules plainly contradict that proposition. See, e.g., Glasker-Davis v Auvenshine, 333 Mich App 222, 227-228; 964 NW2d 809 (2020). … “A finding is clearly erroneous where, after reviewing the entire record, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

People of Michigan v. Robert James Carter

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2018

It was therefore clearly a matter of trial strategy to determine that it was best not to present that testimony and instead to attempt to establish the duress defense through defendant’s own testimony, and this Court does … In order to qualify under the exclusion for statements by a coconspirator, the proponent of the statements must establish three things.

Alcona County v. Wolverine Environmental Production, Inc.

233 Mich. App. 238 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1999

It is tested by the pleadings alone, with the court taking all well-pleaded allegations as true and determining whether the defenses are so clearly untenable as a matter of law that no factual develop *246 ment could possibly … In accordance with these provisions in part 91, the Department of Natural Resources (now the mdeq) promulgated administrative rules establishing, in part, permit requirements for certain “earth changes.” 5 1979 AC, R 323.1701

Land Escape Outdoor Maintenance LLC v. Insurance Advisors Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2015

And it was my understanding very clearly that I would be covered from liability resulting of [sic] a claim.” … Therefore, LEOM cannot establish even the threshold element of a fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation claim.

Emily K Adkison-Hoyt v. Superior Charter Township

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2025

In response to these motions for summary disposition, plaintiffs argued that rezoning decisions are not immune to challenge, even if rezoning is a legislative act that should be given some presumption of validity. … This use is permitted under Superior Charter Township Zoning Ordinance, § 4.02, and the Board clearly did not agree with plaintiffs’ attempts to characterize the property as incompatible with the PC zoning district.