Case law

Thomas Goodhue v. Department of Transportation

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 16, 2017

We agree with the trial court that “[t]hese facts clearly demonstrate that the operation of the Blue Water Bridge is not to produce a pecuniary profit, but rather, to operate the bridge on a self- sustaining basis.” … Thus, there is no question that defendant, the Michigan Department of Transportation, is a “state” under the statute. 4 For our purposes, we assume, without deciding, that the complaint qualifies as a proper notice. 5

Peterfish v. Frantz

168 Mich. App. 43 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 1988

Once the plaintiff has met his burden of establishing the existence of these common-law elements, the defendant brings forth his defense of truth or privilege. … Defendant’s communication in this instance is thus protected by a qualified immunity that may be overcome only by a showing of actual malice. See Swenson-Davis, supra.

Cook v. Department of Social Services

225 Mich. App. 318 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1997

When affluent individuals use Medicaid qualifying trusts and similar “techniques” to qualify for the program, they are diverting scarce Federal and State resources from low-income elderly and disabled individuals, and poor … The Medicaid eligibility provisions are clearly not criminal or punitive, and, therefore, this claim is without merit. In any case, the Medicaid eligibility provisions do not affect petitioner’s rights in the trust.

People v. Stockard

48 Mich. App. 680 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 1973

It does not appear that the testimony of defendant’s witnesses at the hearing established the impossibility or even improbability of impaneling an impartial jury. … Cases cited by defendant in support of his argu *687 ment are clearly distinguishable.

Autoalliance International, Inc v. Department of Treasury

282 Mich. App. 492 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2009

Understood in this light, AutoAlliance clearly “used” the full 3.2 gallons placed into the vehicles at issue. … Once AutoAlliance established that it used the fuel at issue — at least in part — to power vehicles, it met the test stated in DaimlerChrysler and qualified as an “end user.”

Risk v. Lincoln Charter Township Board of Trustees

279 Mich. App. 389 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2008

Among other things, a petition for the recall of a public officer shall “[s]tate clearly each reason for the recall. … “The attorney *393 general shall bring an action for quo warranto when the facts clearly warrant the bringing of that action.

People v. Losey

98 Mich. App. 189 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1980

When alleged coconspirators are granted immunity (or when they are unavailable for prosecution for some reason), no determination as to their guilt has been made. A grant of immunity is not inconsistent with guilt. … Moreover, even if defendant’s statements were not admissible on this basis, they were clearly admissible under the rationale found in People v Randall, 42 Mich App 187; 201 NW2d 292 (1972), wherein this Court stated: "There

Charles Reinhart Co. v. Winiemko

196 Mich. App. 110 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 1992

A judge is clearly in a better position to make this determination. … Resolving legal issues on appeal is an area exclusively within the province of judges; a court is qualified in a way a jury is not to determine the merits and probable outcome of an appeal.

Waatti v. Marquette General Hospital, Inc

122 Mich. App. 44 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1982

We reject the plaintiffs’ claim that the head nurse’s deposition testimony established the requisite standard of care. … Clearly, this occurrence could naturally have occurred absent anyone’s negligence. The mere occurrence of an injury does not permit the inference of negligence. Wilson v Stilwill, supra, p 608.

Koniak v. Heritage Newspapers, Inc

190 Mich. App. 516 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 1991

The question whether a privilege exists, immunizing a libel defendant from liability, is one of law. Stablein v Schuster, 183 Mich App 477, 480 ; 455 NW2d 315 (1990). … "public-interest” privilege, and ultimately held that a report of an arrest and of the facts used to establish the probable cause for the arrest amounts to speech of public concern.

Jeffrey Minor v. City of Sylvan Lake

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2014

The defendants contended that Fick and Silver were subject to qualified governmental immunity and asserted that their conduct did not violate Minor’s clearly established rights because an arrest is only unconstitutional if … FEDERAL QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (DOCKET NOS. 314220 & 314230) A.

People v. Hughes

306 Mich. App. 116 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2014

In other words, an officer’s lies and false statements do not qualify as “involuntary state *130 ment[s]” under MCL 15.393, and consequently may be used as evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. … In sum, the plain language of MCL 15.391(a) establishes that an “involuntary statement” includes only truthful and factual information. Quite simply, when an officer lies, he or she provides no “information.”

Dinger v. Department of Natural Resources

147 Mich. App. 164 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 1985

It was established that plaintiff had Red Cross certification in swimming up to the level just below the lifeguard level. … It was established that no one had been aware of Wamack’s existence, and the court ruled that each of the defendants had exercised reasonable diligence.

Hosko v. Hosko

20 Mich. App. 416 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 1970

Three earlier decisions had shaped that policy, establishing as a general rule the doctrine of interspousal tort *420 immunity. See Bandfield v. Bandfield (1898), 117 Mich 80 ; Harvey v. … Thus, plaintiff in effect urges that we create an additional exception to the "plain and long-established" rule of interspousal tort immunity. See Bandfield, supra, p 82 . This we have no right to do.

In Re Fried

266 Mich. App. 535 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2005

Once a ground for termination is established, the court must order termination of parental rights unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interest. … We conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was in the child’s best interests because the evidence did not establish that termination was clearly not in the child’s best interests. 3 Affirmed

Mainster v. West Bloomfield Township

68 Mich. App. 319 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 1976

It is clear from the above language that the Court applied the first rule in deciding that the city was not immune from application of the zoning ordinances. … As a result, we will not upset the decision of the trial court as it is clearly supportable by the evidence presented. Affirmed.

Manzo v. Petrella

683 N.W.2d 699 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2004

Michigan requires all hospitals, even private entities *705 like HFHS to establish peer review committees. … There are repeated references [1] in the text to assisting "the department," which clearly reference a public entity, a governmental department or agency.

Bell v. Ren-Pharm, Inc

269 Mich. App. 464 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2006

To the contrary, plaintiffs argue that the statute clearly makes each defendant jointly and severally liable for all damages, including those attributable to the fault of a nonparty. … In such a situation, a person who is not immune and who is subject to suit is jointly and severally liable for damages arising out of the acts of a person not named as a party because of some immunity protection.

People v. Ayers

213 Mich. App. 708 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1995

Blockburger 3 "required evidence” test, which involves inquiry into whether each statute requires proof of a fact that the other does not, or an "actual evidence” test, which focuses on whether the same proofs are used to establish … Similarly, in Sturgis, supra at 404-405 , our Supreme Court stated: This Court has now clearly rejected the actual evidence double jeopardy test, and the "wooden application” of Blockburger , in favor of the more flexible

Scott v. City of Detroit

107 Mich. App. 194 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1981

and that governmental immunity is not a defense to a claim properly alleging nuisance. … . * * * For the purposes of that motion, both at the trial and appellate levels, every well-pled allegation in the complaint is assumed to be true. * * * The test is whether the plaintiffs claim, on the pleadings, is so clearly