Case law

Nancy Gucwa v. Accident Fund Insurance Company of America

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2021

Rather, because federal courts employ the state law in which they sit for determining res judicata, defendant argued plaintiff’s IIED claims are clearly barred. … Rather, defendant’s prior payment of benefits indicates defendant’s willingness to comply with its worker’s compensation obligations where plaintiff and Marusza qualify for such benefits.

People of Michigan v. Aaron Dion Franklin

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2021

Indeed, when defense counsel presented the question a second time, Jackson began his response with a qualifier, “[n]o, not to come over to pick up [JF]. I haven’t received any information.” … He testified that he ran away because he panicked or he was, you know he said he, he panicked, but clearly if he thought Mr.

People of Michigan v. Tavaris Javahn Williams

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2021

Defendant does not ask this Court to review the actual legal reasoning of the trial court, nor does he argue that it is clearly erroneous. … Detective Jackson was not qualified as an expert.

Bryan Punturo v. Brace Kern

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2018

Similarly, “[t]he existence of a privilege that immunizes a defendant from liability for [defamation] is a question of law that this Court determines de novo.” … “The statements that suggested that [the opposing parent] abused her child are clearly defamatory, as is the statement that [the opposing parent] was a liar.” Id.

Cedric Richardson v. Bridgett Wright

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2024

Significantly, the term “appraisal” is qualified by the term “the,” which is a definite article denoting a particular appraisal, not just any appraisal. … The burden is on the fee applicant to establish that the hourly rate is reasonable and also to establish the hours worked. Smith, 481 Mich at 531-532.

People of Michigan v. Mario Durrel Davis

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2015

The jury clearly did not believe defendant’s protestations, and convicted him of all charges. … In her argument, the prosecutor implied that defendant would not have qualified for such a large refund—a reasonable inference from the evidence.

People of Michigan v. Franky Joseph Ackley

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2026

Defense counsel opined that the trial court and prosecutor could grant Fung immunity to allow him to testify freely. … The trial court did not have the option to grant Fung immunity.

People of Michigan v. Nathaniel Ward

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2020

Therefore, despite allegations to the contrary by defendant, the district court record in this case clearly establishes that the prosecution complied with MCR 6.101(C). … Defendant has failed to establish the factual predicate for his claim.

People of Michigan v. Robert Michael Avendt

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2017

The trial court clearly conducted the balancing test in this case. … The search and seizure was clearly reasonable because it was by consent of a person with common authority over the property.

in Re melchor/plata-figueroa/rivera/mccaulley Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 2017

JR, three and a half years old at the time, was interviewed by Amanda Fritz, who was deemed qualified without objection as an expert in forensic interviewing. … The trial court’s findings on MCL 712A.19b(3)(k)(iii) were not clearly erroneous.

People of Michigan v. Robert Michael Avendt

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2017

The trial court clearly conducted the balancing test in this case. … The search and seizure was clearly reasonable because it was by consent of a person with common authority over the property.

People of Michigan v. Maxwell Lomax Brack

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2018

In this case, counsel’s decision not to call an expert was clearly a matter of trial strategy made after consultation with persons familiar with cell phone data analysis. … As such, the document qualifies as hearsay. Defendant has not identified any hearsay exception or exemption that would allow its admission.

Phillip Randazzo v. City of Inkster

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2016

They contend that plaintiffs failed to establish a violation of a law, rule, or regulation, and failed to establish an adverse employment action.2 We disagree. … Under the circumstances, MRE 403 was not clearly violated.

People of Michigan v. Martin Dale Lozon

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2024

The trial court responded that it was “going to let Drug Court deal with that” and that the presiding judge of the drug-court program had indicated that defendant was accepted and qualified for the program. … “Statutes and ordinances are presumed to be constitutional and are so construed unless their unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.”

Friendship Jackson LLC v. Friendship Forest Pk Ltd Div Housing

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2020

However, apparent authority must be traceable to the principal and cannot be established only by the acts and conduct of the agent.” Id. … Beulah Hoagland Appleton Qualified Personal Residence Trust v Emmet Co Rd Comm, 236 Mich App 546, 550; 600 NW2d 698 (1999).

Toni Williams v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2020

“MCL 500.3173a(2) does not require that any particular recipient have received the false statement in order for the act to qualify as a fraudulent insurance act, as long as the statement was used as part of or in support … It clearly provides that “[a] person who presents or causes to be presented a[] . . . written statement . . . as part of or in support of a claim to the Michigan automobile insurance placement facility for payment or another

in Re Rc Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 3, 2019

Carrier and her actions which were used to establish her as a careless and irresponsible caregiver who could not be trusted to keep [RC] safe were flat out wrong. … MCL 710.45(2) does not immunize an arbitrary and capricious decision simply because it was not communicated to the individual seeking to adopt or because that individual was invited to submit information after the decision

In Re Car

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2023

A respondent need only qualify as a “person requiring treatment” under one subsection of MCL 330.1401(1) to support a court order for mental-health treatment. … MCL 330.1401(1) (stating that a “person requiring treatment” may qualify under either subdivision “(a), (b), or (c)”).

People of Michigan v. Juwan Antoine Wickware

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2015

The trial court had previously dismissed charges against John, who was granted immunity and also testified against the men. … In fact, meaningful voir dire clearly took place when the trial court exhausted the jury panel and had to resume jury selection the following day.

Matthew Maasdam v. Peri Weingrad

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2022

They submitted affidavits establishing that defendant’s only known address was neither her home nor her business. … Beulah Hoagland Appleton Qualified Personal Residence Trust v Emmet Co Rd Comm, 236 Mich App 546, 550; 600 NW2d 698 (1999).