Case law

People of Michigan v. Jesen Bernard Croskey

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2024

To qualify as a present sense impression, “(1) the statement must provide an explanation or description of the perceived event, (2) the declarant must have personally perceived the event, and (3) the explanation or description … Defendant continued to contest the court’s decision regarding EC, in addition to critiquing defense counsel’s performance, stating, “I clearly told [counsel] about the witness that I have.

Robert Raymond Reed v. Judith Shackelford Hodge

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2021

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. … Instead, HVA relied only on the parent-subsidiary relationship between EHP and HVA, claiming that the relationship was sufficient to establish it as Reed’s and Schenk’s employer.

Jessica Ohst v. Matthew J Crehan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2021

There was clearly no double recovery. See id. B. … It is true that Crehan offered a different version of events in which his promises were more qualified.

Wellesley Gardens Condominium Association v. Ashish P Manek

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2020

A finding is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported in the record or if, on the entire record, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake. … Beulah Hoagland Appleton Qualified Personal Residence Trust v Emmet Co Road Comm, 236 Mich App 546, 550; 600 NW2d 698 (1999).

People of Michigan v. Christopher Andrew Canales

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2021

“A trial court’s factual finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” … On this basis, the only crime that defendant was convicted of that qualified as a serious crime was his AWIGBH conviction, i.e., MCL 750.84.

People of Michigan v. Anthony Ackley

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2021

Not surprisingly, the court selected prison in part because it wanted to “keep[] the community safe”: I think clearly Mr. Ackley suffers from mental illness. … Objectively, counsel’s decision to withdraw the plea qualifies as unreasonable. The record supplies no evidence that the choice to go to trial rather than to enforce the plea deal was strategic.

Harry Lee Sivils v. Ronda Lynn Sivils

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 2018

The judgment required plaintiff to pay defendant $1,000 in monthly spousal support for a set period, to be set off by payments defendant received directly from plaintiff’s pension through a qualified domestic relations order … Property division and spousal support are clearly interrelated and interdependent concepts that cannot be viewed in a vacuum.

Kathy Hahn v. Gary Vanduker

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2021

Thus, the message qualifies as a statement for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment. … Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that plaintiff’s dramshop claim was frivolous. IV.

Norman Levander v. Home Owners Insurance Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2015

We note that had the no-fault insurer of the unidentified motor vehicle actually been identifiable, that insurer would clearly have had priority in providing PIP benefits to the plaintiff. … the car is established.

Estate of Diana E Pozderca v. Maple Lane Golf Club

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2021

In Hill, this Court clearly indicated that a trial court is not precluded from revising or reversing a nonfinal prior order outside the requirements of MCR 2.119(F). … Stating that “[e]yewitness testimony of visible intoxication is not required to establish a dramshop claim,” he concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

People of Michigan v. Scott Robert Jeltema

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2023

Finally, defendant argues that MCL 768.27a violates due process by allowing the prosecutor to establish a crime through propensity evidence. … Michigan law does not require that a victim’s testimony be corroborated in order to establish the elements of a sex offense.

Sherry Horrocks v. Citizens Insurance Company of America

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2018

The trial court appears to have accurately summarized the situation, that plaintiffs simply “had one view of the world that clearly was at odds with reality.” … The trial court, unfortunately, only clearly articulated its belief that plaintiffs genuinely felt they had no choice but to reject the case evaluation award.

Kenneth Gray v. Jacqueline Gray

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2020

ERISA also contained a preemption provision, designed to establish the regulation of pension plans as an exclusively federal concern. … We review de novo a trial court’s decision interpreting a divorce judgment and a qualifying domestic relations order (QDRO), and also review de novo questions of statutory interpretation.

People of Michigan v. Tevin Denzel Sutton

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 2017

A car is not designed to be a dangerous weapon, but it can qualify as such when used in an attempt to drag a person. See Barkley, 151 Mich App at 238. … Singleton’s testimony established the elements of felonious assault.

Apex Laboratories International Inc v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 4, 2024

The Tribunal held that Detroit had not established that Apex (1) had a “commercial domicile” within the city or (2) had sufficient “physical presence” in the city to establish such a nexus. … But, although having a physical presence is no longer required to establish a nexus, when physical presence exists, it still can establish a nexus.

Aletha Maticka Trust v. Martin J Wissmueller

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2017

“A finding is clearly erroneous if the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” … The plaintiffs’ continued use was clearly open and notorious. 3.

Aletha Maticka Trust v. Martin J Wissmueller

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2017

“A finding is clearly erroneous if the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” … The plaintiffs’ continued use was clearly open and notorious. 3.

Fazlul Sarkar v. John Doe

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2016

comment on pubpeer.com anonymously as well. 3 The contents of the flyer are discussed further below. 4 PubPeer also argued that Michigan courts should require that plaintiffs in defamation cases put forth evidence establishing … “moved for a protective order, arguing that the First Amendment protects a critic’s right to anonymously comment about the actions of a public official and that the identities of the anonymous writers were subject to a qualified

in Re Conservatorship of Mary Louise Montgomery

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2017

“A 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.” … Importantly, we are confident that the inability to act in her mother’s best interests easily qualifies as good cause for her removal as conservator. Consequently, the probate court did not abuse its discretion.

in Re Conservatorship of Mary Louise Montgomery

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2017

“A 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.” … Importantly, we are confident that the inability to act in her mother’s best interests easily qualifies as good cause for her removal as conservator. Consequently, the probate court did not abuse its discretion.