Case law

In Re Deblock Estate

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2022

Thus, according to Kenneth, because he does not qualify as a fiduciary, the trial court improperly surcharged him. … Because the power to hold a party in contempt is so great, it carries with it the equally great responsibility to apply it judiciously and only when the contempt is clearly and unequivocally shown.”

James Bellefeuil v. Julie Wilson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 2023

In fact it is an unusual case where none of the issues confronting the jury (including duty, breach, and causal connection) is established, at least in part, by a process of inference from relevant and established … As the arbitrator put it: “She clearly had an incentive to manufacture the sexual assault allegations against Mr. Bellefeuil.”

in Re Attorney Fees of Michael Skinner

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2019

The prosecution established its case with the assistance of a certified “Medical Examiner Investigator,” Rosey Ross. Ross is not a physician. … “A decision qualifies as clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

People of Michigan v. Bernard Antoine Hardrick

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 27, 2021

The trial court clearly stated that defendant could—and requested that he do—raise any objections he wanted at the conclusion of the prosecutor’s argument. … Despite not qualifying to take title under the doctrine of adverse possession, defendant nonetheless would have to be acquitted if he held an honest belief that he was the owner of the properties because false pretenses requires

Systematic Recycling LLC v. Fifth Third Bank

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2014

The court fully approved Amicus’s sale of the property, and Systematic therefore cannot establish that Amicus acted in bad faith when it offered the property for sale. … A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) should be granted “only when the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery.”

Marc Goodson v. Hugh Cairns

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2020

There were not enough qualified voters at that time to remove any of the directors. … However, findings of fact by the trial court may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. MCR 2.613(C).

People of Michigan v. Tarone Devon Washington

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 2017

With its general definition of “felony,” “The Legislature clearly expressed its intent that offenses punishable by more than one year of imprisonment be treated as ‘felonies’ throughout the Code of Criminal Procedure.” … In that case, the defendant argued that resisting arrest (a Penal Code offense) did not qualify as a felony for purposes of felony firearm (a Penal Code offense).

People of Michigan v. Tarone Devon Washington

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 2017

With its general definition of “felony,” “The Legislature clearly expressed its intent that offenses punishable by more than one year of imprisonment be treated as ‘felonies’ throughout the Code of Criminal Procedure.” … In that case, the defendant argued that resisting arrest (a Penal Code offense) did not qualify as a felony for purposes of felony firearm (a Penal Code offense).

Mishawnda C Lindsey v. Bloomfield Orchard Apartments

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2023

The motion may “only be granted when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Id. A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. … Recreational marijuana was legalized in 2018 by the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act, MCL 333.27951 et seq., and has been legal for medically qualifying patients under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (“MMMA”) since

People of Michigan v. Emanuel Long

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2021

A trial court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous when this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake. … Thus, the threshold issue on appeal is limited to whether the police’s seizure of the cell phone qualified under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.

Johnson Controls Inc v. Atlantic Automotive Components LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2015

The trial court’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous. 11 Additionally, the terms and conditions of purchase required two actions on the part of defendant in the event of termination under section 20 that are … Owens 13 The testimony established, however, that defendant itself implemented the highest of the steps in the escalation process, which included 100% dock audits and third-party containment.

Nicholas David Burnett v. Tracy Lynn Ahola

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2018

The outcome of the ROPA trial was to establish plaintiff as the biological and legal father of JDA. … Clearly each topic of fraud now alleged was known or should have been known to the Defendants and their original trial counsel.

Cheryl Newton v. Mariners Inn

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 2017

“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.” Id. … RACE DISCRIMINATION To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, a plaintiff must present evidence that he or she (1) belongs to a protected class, (2) suffered an adverse employment action, (3) was qualified

Cheryl Newton v. Mariners Inn

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 2017

“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.” Id. … RACE DISCRIMINATION To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, a plaintiff must present evidence that he or she (1) belongs to a protected class, (2) suffered an adverse employment action, (3) was qualified

Nicholas David Burnett v. Tracy Lynn Ahola

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2018

The outcome of the ROPA trial was to establish plaintiff as the biological and legal father of JDA. … Clearly each topic of fraud now alleged was known or should have been known to the Defendants and their original trial counsel.

Shannon M Hartwick v. Clarissa De Luna

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2023

Clearly, defendant was not relinquished of her responsibility to deliver a proper deed to plaintiff simply because she disposed of the property in some way. … Despite these contentions, “[a] judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration,” even if “stern and short-tempered,” are “immune” from charges of bias and partiality.

People of Michigan v. Robert Jerry Vansickle

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2019

An individual “goes armed” within the meaning of MCL 750.226, when the evidence shows “that the accused departed from a location while equipped with a qualifying weapon in his or her possession and, at the time of departing … See Mitchell, 301 Mich App at 293 n 4 (“Because the statute clearly prohibits only the conduct of a person who ‘goes armed,’ use of the phrase ‘being armed’ impermissibly expands the scope of MCL 750.226.”).

People of Michigan v. Terry Terrell Clark

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2017

There are two primary requirements for an out-of-court statement to qualify under the excited utterance exception: (1) a startling event must have occurred, and (2) the resulting statement must have been made while the declarant … Defendant has failed to establish that he was denied a fair trial based on this statement. See Bennett, 290 Mich App at 475.

People of Michigan v. Terry Terrell Clark

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2017

There are two primary requirements for an out-of-court statement to qualify under the excited utterance exception: (1) a startling event must have occurred, and (2) the resulting statement must have been made while the declarant … Defendant has failed to establish that he was denied a fair trial based on this statement. See Bennett, 290 Mich App at 475.

People of Michigan v. Terrance Anthony Furline

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2018

That was a race- neutral reason clearly based on the statements Fowlkes made in court. … Detective Biniecki testified from the position of a layperson because he was not offered by the plaintiff, nor qualified by the court, as an expert.