Case law

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

Midwest Valve & Fitting Company v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2023

are hereby prohibited from levying any tax not authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified, without the approval of a -3-  majority of the qualified … That finding, precluding unjust enrichment, is not clearly erroneous. Fire Marshal Battle testified at trial that the fees were for the issuance of permits, not inspections.

Huron City Company v. Charles Abram Parcells III

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2018

When considering a motion for reconsideration, “[i]n order to establish the right to relief, the party bringing the motion . . . must establish that the trial court made a palpable error and a different disposition would … This conclusion is also in line with the qualifier in the first part of the Black’s definition, “esp. by deed or will,” both of which indicate finality of the transfer.

People of Michigan v. Aaron Wade

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2016

December 16, 2015 opinion on remand, the trial court still did not address these facts surrounding the interrogation or explain how the expert’s conclusions regarding defendant’s mental deficiencies were alone sufficient to qualify … Clearly, the trial court in this case misconstrues the test for a voluntary and knowing waiver of Miranda rights as well as its role in determining whether a waiver is valid.

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

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

People of Michigan v. Timothy Fitzgerald Tennille

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2016

On this record, we cannot say that the circuit court clearly erred, as defendants have provided us with no basis to override the trial court’s credibility finding. II. … Sergeant Gibson heads the police department’s video forensics team and the court qualified him without objection as an expert in forensic video analysis and technology.

In Re Westen Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2023

The record in this case does not clearly define the exact nature or extent of respondent’s disability, if any. … Sanborn, 337 Mich App at 266 (“Unlike In re Hicks, the record does not establish that there were specific services that the DHHS failed to provide.

People of Michigan v. Fred Derrick Rutledge

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2017

This is clearly an improper purpose. … Again, this was not a proper purpose under MRE 404(b) and accordingly, the evidence was clearly admitted in error.

People of Michigan v. George Edward Thompson Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2023

At defendant’s trial, the prosecution called as a witness Aaron Roberts, a digital forensic analyst with the Michigan State Police (MSP), who was qualified as an expert in computer forensics. … Clearly, the central reason was out of a reasonable fear that the prosecution would use the evidence to bolster its case to the detriment of defendant’s.

People of Michigan v. Shane Mel Johnson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2024

We will conclude that the trial court’s factual determinations are clearly erroneous only if we are left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake. … Moreover, “movement of a victim that is incidental to the commission of a crime nonetheless qualifies as asportation.” Id. at 17.

People of Michigan v. Fred Derrick Rutledge

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2017

This is clearly an improper purpose. … Again, this was not a proper purpose under MRE 404(b) and accordingly, the evidence was clearly admitted in error.

People of Michigan v. Nicole Lynn Pacheco

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2019

Defendant also argues that the prosecution failed to establish that her arrest was lawful. See Quinn, 305 Mich App at 492. … Although the record is not clear as to which subsection of MCL 750.81 applied to defendant’s assault and battery convictions, none of the subsections that are potentially applicable in her case qualify as felonies.

People of Michigan v. Fakher Haydar Al-Yasiry

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2016

Therefore, any error would qualify as nonconstitutional. A. … The trial court did not clearly err in finding that a preponderance of the evidence showed that defendant was a leader in this multiple offender situation.

Glenn a Lovejoy v. Susan a Snyder

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2020

The court found that the reference to 339.09 feet was “false” and was “clearly supposed to be 399, not 339 feet.” … Beulah Hoagland Appleton Qualified Personal Residence Trust v Emmet Co Rd Comm, 236 Mich App 546, 550; 600 NW2d 698 (1999). C.

The Best Team Ever Inc v. Conlan Abu

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2025

Kahaian testified that had there been no breach of the APA, purchasers still would have been entitled to relief funds if they qualified. Purchasers sought $2.46 million in damages at trial. … Thus, the award was not “clearly or grossly inadequate or excessive” to justify a new trial. MCR 2.611(A)(1)(d).

Black Law Offices Pc v. First Merit Bank

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 2016

“If reasonable minds could not differ on the legal effects of the facts, whether governmental immunity bars a plaintiff’s claim is a question of law.” Id. … Summary disposition under (C)(8) is appropriate only when the claims are “so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could justify recovery.”

People of Michigan v. Ryan Mark Wyngarden

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2015

[A] court evaluating proposed expert testimony must ensure that the testimony (1) will assist the trier of fact to understand a fact in issue, (2) is provided by an expert qualified in the relevant field of … The jury clearly rejected that theory. The jury also rejected the theory that Gail was the target of a “hit” because she had knowledge of alleged wrong-doing at work.

Citimortgage Inc v. Fmm Bushnell LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2014

Defendants’ mortgage is not entitled to priority merely because it was filed first, as defendant does not qualify as a good-faith purchaser. … Accordingly, the trial court clearly erred as a matter of law by determining that defendant was entitled to summary disposition.

Bodashia Grimm v. Department of Corrections

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 19, 2022

Establishing a prima facie case of discrimination requires a plaintiff to show that (1) she belongs to a protected class, (2) she suffered an adverse employment action, (3) she was qualified for the position, and (4) she … “The employee’s charge must clearly convey to an objective employer that the employee is raising the specter of a claim of unlawful discrimination pursuant to the CRA.” Barrett, 245 Mich App at 319.