Case law

in Re Jsm Grasty Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2017

We review a circuit court’s factual finding that a statutory termination ground has been established for clear error. Rood, 483 Mich at 90-91. … However, the DHHS need only establish one ground to support termination and it supported two. As such, we discern no ground for reversal. IV.

People of Michigan v. Ernest William Black

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 2023

In the motion, defendant argued that the other-acts evidence should be excluded from trial because it was irrelevant to the instant case and, therefore, did not qualify under MCL 768.27a as the alleged previous offenses occurred … The record clearly demonstrates that defendant was charged with listed sexual offenses against a minor, and that the testimonies of the witnesses also featured listed sexual offenses against minors.

James P Page v. City of Wyandotte

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2018

or charter when this section is ratified or from increasing the rate of an existing tax above that rate authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified, without the approval of a majority of the qualified … In any event, regardless of the City Administrator’s interpretation of the CFF, the franchise agreement between the City and the WMS clearly described a fee relating to use of the rights-of-way and other incidents to cable

People of Michigan v. D'Sean Hatten

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2015

The trial court assessed 50 points for OV 7 based on its findings that defendant had called the house, said he was coming to shoot the house, and did so twice, which qualified as an act of terror. … These findings were not clearly erroneous and were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See Hardy, 494 Mich at 438. These facts are also adequate to satisfy the scoring of 50 points for OV 7. See id.

Patricia Merchand v. Richard L Carpenter Md

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2016

contrary, defendant asserts that the probative value of admitting the records under [MRE] 404(b) is limited, given defendant’s admission that he occasionally makes charting errors and the testimony at trial establishing … action. 9 Although not addressed by the majority, my conclusion renders it necessary to briefly address other evidentiary challenges made by plaintiff before the trial court and again on 8 Notably, the majority clearly

Robert Tate v. Sade Jackson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2019

The Meemic Court reached this conclusion even though it acknowledged that the injured man in that case was a resident relative of the named insureds, and therefore qualified as an “insured person” under the insurance policy … Plaintiff initially listed his prior employer on the application form, but then crossed out the entry, clearly indicating that he did not want defendant to rely on that information in determining benefits.

People of Michigan v. Elliott Guanzalaus-Gwy Shaffer

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2019

The charged offenses of CSC-I and CSC-III and the other-acts evidence qualify as listed offenses against a minor. See MCL 768.27a(2). … Given that the elements of CSC-III—defendant’s only conviction—were clearly established by his own admissions, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that any possible inference drawn from the other-acts evidence did not cause

Tom Nowacki v. Department of Corrections

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2023

“Clearly, the []DOC’s plan was the product of a reasoned decision-making process.” Id. at 752 (quotation marks and citation omitted). … As described by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, “In many industries, it is difficult to imagine any jobs that would qualify as BFOQs.

Grandview Beach Association v. County of Cheboygan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2021

The Planning Commission further finds that the letters from the Tuscarora Township Fire Department, the Cheboygan County Sheriff’s Department and the PLB Planning Group study clearly indicate that there … This is not the proper standard to be employed when determining the issue of whether a party qualifies as an “aggrieved party.” Olsen, 325 Mich App at 180-18.

20221215_C361179_29_361179.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2022

Moreover, Ortiz-Kehoe has failed to establish a radical jurisdictional defect warranting habeas corpus relief. We affirm the circuit court’s denial of Ortiz-Kehoe’s complaint. I. … To qualify for habeas corpus relief a jurisdictional defect must be so “radical” that it renders “the conviction absolutely -5- void.” Id. at 486.

Robert Tate v. Sade Jackson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2019

The Meemic Court reached this conclusion even though it acknowledged that the injured man in that case was a resident relative of the named insureds, and therefore qualified as an “insured person” under the insurance policy … Plaintiff initially listed his prior employer on the application form, but then crossed out the entry, clearly indicating that he did not want defendant to rely on that information in determining benefits.

People of Michigan v. Tarone Devon Washington

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 2017

Therefore, the prosecution clearly filed its notice within 21-days of filing the information and complied with the requirements of MCL 769.13 and MCR 6.112(F). 8 MCL 750.479a(3). … This is clearly a clerical error as defendant was convicted after a jury trial. On remand, the trial court should correct this clerical error.

People of Michigan v. Cortez Dajuan Brooks

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 2017

Defendant was not entitled to a witness statement under MCL 768.27a, which clearly requires either a statement or a summary of testimony. … Defendant thus has failed to establish a factual predicate for his claim. People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 6; 594 NW2d 57 (1999).

Nicholas Pavlak v. James Bechtel

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2024

Neither of the Pavlaks were qualified as experts in the area of home valuation or a related field. … The jury could have concluded that the Pavlaks had not established (or at least, not established by clear and convincing evidence) that any reliance on Bechtel’s statements was reasonable.

People of Michigan v. Tarone Devon Washington

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 2017

Therefore, the prosecution clearly filed its notice within 21-days of filing the information and complied with the requirements of MCL 769.13 and MCR 6.112(F). 8 MCL 750.479a(3). … This is clearly a clerical error as defendant was convicted after a jury trial. On remand, the trial court should correct this clerical error.

People of Michigan v. Terrence Ray Bunting Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2017

Following Davis’s waiver of his Miranda rights, Davis did not clearly and unequivocally invoke his right to counsel. … The prosecutor was allowed to argue the facts presented, and evidence presented at trial clearly established that Davis and his companions conspired to enter Hershberger’s apartment for the purpose of stealing cash and marijuana

People of Michigan v. John Benton Lewis

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2020

Detective Lieutenant Sanders, who was qualified as an expert in firearms training, opined that, given the location of the bullet holes, the shooter had been shooting at one person. … Plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights was not established.

People of Michigan v. Dion Beach

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 2020

However, the prosecutor’s description of defendant as a “well-dressed, six foot four monster” clearly constitutes a characterization of defendant distinct from the evidence presented at trial. … “A finding is clearly erroneous if it leaves this Court with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” People v Dillon, 296 Mich App 506, 508; 822 NW2d 611 (2012).

People of Michigan v. Zebadiah Joseph Soriano

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 30, 2024

The evidence clearly demonstrated that when defendant was first taken into custody, he was not in any condition to give a statement. … Defendant contends that the 2021 SORA qualifies as criminal punishment, and therefore, applying it to him retroactively violates constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws.

People of Michigan v. Nathan Daniel Gilliam

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2024

“A statute challenged on constitutional grounds is presumed to be constitutional and will be construed as such unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.” … AM clearly testified that Gilliam sexually assaulted her when she was 12 years old and when she was between 13 and 16 years old.