Case law

Desiree Durga v. Memberselect Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2025

Fraud “is not to be lightly presumed, but must be clearly proved . . . by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence.” … However, defendant cannot establish any of those elements in this case.

Jamila Youmans v. Charter Township of Bloomfield

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 7, 2021

Trice testified that he was the individual who established the amount of the disputed $350,000 rent charge. … Theis opined that this represented clearly proportionate cash outflows of 96% of the cash inflows.

People of Michigan v. Ricky Alonzo Lewis

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2016

Accordingly, defendant has failed to establish a plain error affecting his substantial rights. Borgne, 483 Mich at 196-197. … Following Lockridge, this Court has addressed preserved claims of sentencing error and held that a preserved Alleyne/Lockridge error must be reviewed to determine if it qualifies as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tommie L Reed v. Deborah Reed

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2018

On November 28, 2016, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and entered an order directing preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO),1 so as to provide for defendant’s receipt of 50% of … “Findings of facts are clearly erroneous when this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

Tommie L Reed v. Deborah Reed

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2018

On November 28, 2016, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and entered an order directing preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO),1 so as to provide for defendant’s receipt of 50% of … “Findings of facts are clearly erroneous when this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

People of Michigan v. Cortez Lamon Mack

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2017

Statues are presumed constitutional, “and this Court must construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.” People v Harris, 495 Mich 120, 133; 845 NW2d 477 (2014). … These interpretations all conclude that “concealment” does not require complete invisibility and that a firearm can be partially exposed and still qualify as “concealed.” Defendants are presumed to know the law.

20241217_C365702_52_365702.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2024

Spitz was qualified to render an expert opinion about Miller’s conscious pain and suffering. Rather, the court ruled that plaintiff could establish a foundation for Dr. Spitz’s expertise at trial. … Spitz qualified as an expert. Defense counsel responded, “No objection, Your Honor.” So the trial court qualified Dr. Spitz as an expert in -20- forensic pathology.

Brandy Hilyard v. David Johnston

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2021

“If the language of a statute is unambiguous, the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written.” … In this case, petitioner did not qualify for attorney fees under MCL 552.2313.

People of Michigan v. Andrew James Gruber

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2021

The trial court in this case qualified Thomas Cottrell as an expert in the area of “child sexual assault behavior” on the basis of his education and extensive experience. … The statement made by the mother was inadmissible, completely, clearly inadmissible under the law.

in Re mickaels/baldwin Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2016

evidence presented at the termination hearing, the trial court found that the DHHS had proved the aforementioned statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, and that a preponderance of the evidence established … Finally, she contends that, even though her cognitive limitations are such as possibly to qualify her for SSI benefits, and thus for an income source to obtain housing and to provide for her children’s basic needs, none of

20221117_C361062_33_361062.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2022

“A probate court’s finding is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, even if there is evidence to support the finding.” Id. … The parties do not dispute that respondent qualifies as a person requiring treatment.

Fifth Third Bank v. Couzens Lansky Fealk Ellis Roeder & Lazar Pc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2016

Defendants clearly exercised reasonable judgment in pursuing the foreclosure by advertisement. … Fifth Third argues that “[a]lthough the Bank did make the ultimate decision regarding the Credit Bid, the record plainly established that it made the decision in heavy reliance upon the advice and expertise of counsel.”

Russell Loiola v. Citizens Insurance Company of America

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2020

Payment of these wages is clearly not an allowable expense under the no-fault insurance act. … First addressing whether Citizens pleaded fraud in their answer, they clearly did.

Rudolph T Stonisch III v. Forthright IV LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 2018

Accordingly, Forthright fails to establish any error. V. … The evidence, however, did not establish that Forthright was unable to pay the judgments.

People of Michigan v. Deonte Howard

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2014

The first shots fired by defendant could qualify as being brought about by “hot blood” without an opportunity to take a second thought. … According to defendant, McFadden’s testimony that he identified defendant as the shooter in the photo array is nevertheless clearly false.

People of Michigan v. William Gale Melendez

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2017

Participation in an interrogation pursuant to an investigative subpoena is therefore essentially compulsory, and can clearly implicate a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. … The totality of the circumstances establishes that defense counsel unequivocally agreed to the jury as finally composed.

People of Michigan v. William Gale Melendez

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2017

Participation in an interrogation pursuant to an investigative subpoena is therefore essentially compulsory, and can clearly implicate a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. … The totality of the circumstances establishes that defense counsel unequivocally agreed to the jury as finally composed.

Naveen F Sangji v. Pavan K Bendapudi

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2024

A finding is clearly erroneous when this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake. … follows: If the court determines that scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified

in Re Cannon Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2017

Accordingly, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence established grounds for termination of the parents’ parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). … The court rejected father’s suggestion to place the children with Hernandez on the ground of her noncompliance with the treatment plan, opining that the mere fact of father’s marriage to Hernandez did not automatically qualify

People of Michigan v. Taija Denice Bush

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2017

Thus, the issue on appeal is limited to whether the police’s seizure of the phone qualified under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. … To qualify under the exception, “[t]he police must . . . establish the existence of an actual emergency on the basis of specific and objective facts indicating that immediate action is necessary to (1) prevent the imminent