Case law

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.

In Re S Jones Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 2022

In this case, respondent did not assert any rights under the ADA in the trial court; therefore, this issue is unpreserved.2 Petitioner, however, does not challenge respondent’s assertion that she qualifies as a disabled parent … Clearly, respondent was not amenable to any treatment, despite understanding that defying the court’s orders would likely lead to termination of her parental rights.

20250212_C366399_43_366399.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2025

The trial court did not err, clearly or otherwise, by admitting the challenged evidence; therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a new trial on that basis. … MRE 702 provides: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates

Ronald Abdella v. State Street Realty LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 10, 2018

Plaintiff’s belief was insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact. … Therefore, the commitment clearly did not satisfy the term “100% of the purchase price,” regardless of whether it was a conventional mortgage or not.

Lowell Phillips v. City of Ferndale

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2017

This Court reviews . . . a motion [for summary disposition] under MCR 2.116(C)(8) to determine whether the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish … To establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas an employee must “show that [he or she] as (1) a member of a protected class, (2) subject to an adverse employment action, (3) qualified for the position, and that (

People of Michigan v. Lilbert Harris Gregory

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 2021

Being pushed to the ground and suffering from bruises and soreness clearly qualify as something that a victim would perceive as an unwanted physically damaging consequence. See id. … Thus, the record clearly establishes that defendant used actual and threatened force to prevent the victim from calling emergency services to report defendant’s actions.

Estate of Mary Lee Fishman-Piku v. Stephen Piku Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2017

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. … But ample evidence at trial established that defendant abused plaintiff.

People of Michigan v. Ray Livingston Lee

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 2021

On balance, the reasons for the various delays do not clearly favor either the defense or the prosecution. C. … Without the benefit of hindsight, the trial court’s observation of “be careful what you wish for” does not seem clearly erroneous.

People of Michigan v. William Roy Lee Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2016

“Testimony,” in turn, is typically “[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.” Ibid. … Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether Leander’s statement to Ruff qualifies under the rules of evidence.

Lowell Phillips v. City of Ferndale

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2017

This Court reviews . . . a motion [for summary disposition] under MCR 2.116(C)(8) to determine whether the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish … To establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas an employee must “show that [he or she] as (1) a member of a protected class, (2) subject to an adverse employment action, (3) qualified for the position, and that (

People of Michigan v. James Mark Washington

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2017

“[D]efendant has the burden of establishing the factual predicate for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel[.]” People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 6, 594 NW2d 57 (1999). … “Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and courts have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.”

Spine Specialists of Michigan Pc v. State Farm Auto Insurance Co

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2026

On August 4, 2023, defendant moved for a new trial or remittitur under MCR 2.611 and relief from judgment pursuant to MCR 2.612(C)(1), contending that the “jury’s verdict is clearly excessive or grossly excessive” because … The Moore Court concluded, “Because the jury awarded plaintiff only $98.71 in penalty interest and failed to award penalty interest on the $42,755 awarded in unpaid work loss benefits, . . .those benefits do not qualify as

Thomas J Budzynski Pc v. Monique R Bil

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2014

While defendant may be unable to ultimately establish that the promissory note is void as to her based on MRPC 1.8, she stated facts sufficient to “apprise the plaintiff of the nature of the defense relied upon, so that he … By the note’s own terms, the loan was a business transaction to a client and such language clearly implicated MPRC 1.8(a).

Ronald Abdella v. State Street Realty LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 10, 2018

Plaintiff’s belief was insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact. … Therefore, the commitment clearly did not satisfy the term “100% of the purchase price,” regardless of whether it was a conventional mortgage or not.

People of Michigan v. James Mark Washington

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2017

“[D]efendant has the burden of establishing the factual predicate for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel[.]” People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 6, 594 NW2d 57 (1999). … “Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and courts have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.”

People of Michigan v. Annie Lenease Russell

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2018

Statutes are presumed to be constitutional and are so construed unless their unconstitutionality is clearly apparent. People v Deroche, 299 Mich App 301, 305; 829 NW2d 891 (2013). … Contrary to defendant’s assertion, these cases do not establish a lack of consistency or other limitation regarding what conduct constitutes interference with the administration of justice.

Arthur Bienz v. Township of Clarence

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2017

Here, however, petitioners’ property’s taxable value was not uncapped when they bought the property in 2014 because the transfer qualified under the agricultural exception to MCL 221.27a(3). … “The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the property.” MCL 205.737(3).

Rita Walsh v. Marc Sakwa Md

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2022

Here, to establish the standard of care, plaintiffs proffered the testimony of Dr. … The trial court thus clearly erred in finding that Dr. Samuels’ testimony met the factors of MCL 600.2955 (b), (c), (e), (f), and (g). The literature offered to support Dr.

In Re Murray Estate

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2023

VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGE Mack Murray argues that she established the validity of her marriage to the decedent. … Considering the substantial evidence supporting the probate court’s findings, we cannot conclude that these findings were clearly erroneous.

People v. Wybrecht

222 Mich. App. 160 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 22, 1997

In the present case, the trial court did not declare defendant's prior sentences invalid on any established ground. See, generally, Whalen, supra at 169-170 , 312 N.W.2d 638 . … Vesting the trial court with such power would conflict with established doctrine prohibiting the trial court from revisiting sentencing decisions.