Case law

People of Michigan v. Curtis Conway Bailey

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2014

The video recording of the complainant’s June 8, 2010, forensic interview was played for the jury wherein the complainant clearly explained that defendant “stuck” his fingers inside her and moved his fingers “up and down. … Therefore, defendant has failed to establish that, but for trial counsel’s failure to object, the outcome of his trial would have been different.

Kay Bee Kay Holding Company LLC v. Pnc Bank Na

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2020

Taleb has also failed to establish how the trial court lacked jurisdiction to determine the issue. … Further, circuit courts clearly have subject- matter jurisdiction over such issues.

People of Michigan v. Anthony Darryl Colbert

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2018

For the purpose of scoring OV 11, this Court agreed with the trial court and found that “the evidence established five instances of sexual penetration during the assault, four involving penile penetration and one involving … Defendant essentially admitted to the conduct, but qualified it as “seem[ing] like a very heinous thing,” but actually just being a “dumb” decision made when defendant “was not thinking clearly.”

Eci Environmental Consultants and Engineers v. House of Providence

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2023

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. [Citations and emphasis omitted.] … “contract” can be “of whatever nature,” as long as it “provides an improvement to real property,” MCL 570.1103(4), there is, at a minimum, a question of fact as to whether plaintiff’s alleged work would be sufficient to qualify

People of Michigan v. Robert Joseph Mattson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2017

“[I]f the trial court clearly erred in finding that a preponderance of the evidence supported one or more of the OV’s . . . … Defendant responded that he was both satisfied with the defense counsel’s advice and clearly understood that the choice to testify was his to make.

People of Michigan v. Anthony Darryl Colbert

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2018

For the purpose of scoring OV 11, this Court agreed with the trial court and found that “the evidence established five instances of sexual penetration during the assault, four involving penile penetration and one involving … Defendant essentially admitted to the conduct, but qualified it as “seem[ing] like a very heinous thing,” but actually just being a “dumb” decision made when defendant “was not thinking clearly.”

William Ahee v. City of Novi

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2019

“If the statutory language is unambiguous, we presume that the Legislature intended the meaning that it clearly expressed, and further construction is neither required nor permitted.” Id. at 206. … These cases are inapposite because this case does not turn on the question of governmental tort immunity or whether the government is engaged in activity for the primary purpose of producing pecuniary profit.

People of Michigan v. Larry West

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2016

Assuming that defense counsel’s reference below to the “alleged CI” implied an assertion that the CI did not exist, the law requires more for the production of a CI than a qualified statement that the CI does not exist. … The court denied defendant’s motion for a new attorney, and clearly indicated that it was not going to stay the trial should defendant decide to pursue an interlocutory appeal.

People of Michigan v. Gary Anthony Mahan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2019

Theresa Scott, another forensic scientist with the MSP, was qualified as an expert in “biology and body fluid identification.” … Thus, he has not met his burden of establishing that reversal is warranted.

Ameerah Matti v. Hussan Tahnun

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2024

stating that for policies “issued or renewed after July 1, 2020, the insurer shall offer to an applicant or named insured that selects a personal protection benefit limit under [MCL 500.]3107c(1)(b) an exclusion related to qualified … However, under Moore, 482 Mich at 517, this only established the overdue prerequisite which is not in dispute.

Timothy Kenney v. Susan Therese Johnson

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 30, 2024

The parties primarily relied on their briefs and the trial court held that plaintiff failed to establish that palpable error was committed but a stay was granted pending the payment of a bond. … 844 NW2d 189 (2014), this Court explained: In a divorce action, this Court reviews for clear error a trial court’s factual findings on the division of marital property and whether a particular asset qualifies

In Re Parole of Kenneth Donald Siders

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2022

As part of the parole evaluation process, defendant underwent a Qualified Mental Health Professional Evaluation (QMHP), a Static-99R evaluation, and a Stable-2007 evaluation. … The Parole Board clearly abused its discretion by granting defendant parole. The circuit court, therefore, did not err by reversing the Parole Board’s decision.

People of Michigan v. Robert Joseph Mattson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2017

“[I]f the trial court clearly erred in finding that a preponderance of the evidence supported one or more of the OV’s . . . … Defendant responded that he was both satisfied with the defense counsel’s advice and clearly understood that the choice to testify was his to make.

O People of Michigan v. Bradley Nolan Clark

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2024

This Court described the challenged testimony and questions in Clark I, unpub op at 10- 11, as follows: Officer Lyons testified at Officer Clark’s trial with a promise of immunity. … Nonetheless, the judge clearly emphasized the lack of a warrant and failure to run the license plate, which suggested her general belief that the officers acted improperly.

People of Michigan v. Thelonious Deshane-Ear Searcy

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2021

Next, in order to obtain relief, Searcy had to establish “actual prejudice.” … Consequently, the trial court clearly erred when it concluded that Smother’s testimony was entirely incredible. See id. at 571.

People of Michigan v. Keith Darrius Manders

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2020

Let’s attempt to establish a factual basis for the two crimes. … Accordingly, the factual basis for the plea was established by defendant’s own admissions.

People of Michigan v. Marquan Antonio Jackson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2014

“A finding is clearly erroneous if it leaves this Court with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” Id. at 373. … Here, the testimony established that a BB gun was used in the carjacking and armed robbery, and there is no record evidence establishing that the BB gun was capable of propelling BB’s exceeding .177 calibre.

Wayne Watkins v. Saginaw's Famous Fried Chicken LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 10, 2018

A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may be granted only where the claims alleged are so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Id. … These statements clearly indicate plaintiff’s opposition to an unlawful activity.

Odell Jones v. Cyril C Hall

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2024

“The reviewing court must view the pleadings and supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether the undisputed facts show that the moving party has immunity.” Id. … The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that “they did not terminate their attorney- client relationship with defendant law firm because they did not clearly indicate that they were releasing defendant law firm from its

Mark L Rugiero v. George R Lubienski

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2016

Subject- matter jurisdiction is established by reference to the allegations in the complaint. Neal v Oakwood Hospital Corp, 226 Mich App 701, 707; 575 NW2d 68 (1997). … (vi) Instruct a trustee and determine relative to a trustee the existence or nonexistence of an immunity, power, privilege, duty, or right. (vii) Release registration of a trust.