Case law

Maria Perkins v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2017

the city had filed a Chapter 9 petition for bankruptcy protection on July 18, 2013, that on November 21, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an order establishing … The main clause of that section clearly indicates that “applicable nonbankruptcy law” must be the source of a “period for commencing . . . a civil action” in order for the section to apply.

Maria Perkins v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2017

the city had filed a Chapter 9 petition for bankruptcy protection on July 18, 2013, that on November 21, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an order establishing … The main clause of that section clearly indicates that “applicable nonbankruptcy law” must be the source of a “period for commencing . . . a civil action” in order for the section to apply.

Phares a Noel II v. Scholastic Solutions LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2019

More specifically, case law establishes that “[a]n accounting is unnecessary where discovery is sufficient to determine the amounts at issue.” … Hence, under MCR 2.504(B)(3), the grants of summary disposition qualify as final adjudications on the merits for purposes of res judicata.

People of Michigan v. James Michael Franks

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2019

Defendant presented the testimony of David Jamison, a mechanical engineer and biomedical engineer who was qualified as an expert in biomechanics and biomedicine. … -12- is well-established.

People of Michigan v. Percy Edward Taylor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2018

Instead, the record establishes that defense counsel’s performance was objectively reasonable. … On this record, Taylor has failed to establish plain error affecting his substantial rights.

Thomas Tibble v. American Physicians Capital Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2014

Where the sentence begins a new paragraph, it was clearly not intended to be part of the instructional definition for bad faith. … If the statutory language is unambiguous, the Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written. Id.

City of Detroit v. City of Highland Park

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 2022

The case evaluators stated that they were not convinced that Highland Park could establish that its claims exceeded Detroit’s 2015 judgment. … Although Highland Park initially attempted to expand the scope of its appellate issues, it clearly abandoned this effort.

In Re Harris Estate

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2023

A factual finding is clearly erroneous when this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made, even when there is evidence to support the probate court’s finding. … “[T]o acquire the powers and undertake the duties and liabilities of a decedent’s personal representative, a person must be appointed by the register or by court order, must qualify, and must be issued letters[,]” and “[t

People of Michigan v. Gregory Lynn Nieman

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2019

Defendant lamented that he did not want Kosmala to represent him, but that he was “not qualified to represent [him]self.” … Manual strangulation causing death clearly falls within the parameters of “caus[ing] serious physical harm” under the vulnerable adult abuse statute.

People of Michigan v. Steven Paul Thompson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2016

Therefore, defendant’s offense does not qualify as a major offense under the statute. Counsel was not ineffective for his failure to request the jury instruction because any request would have been futile. … However, this instruction should only be given if the evidence clearly indicates that the witness was an addict, and occasional drug use by an informant does not warrant the addict- informer instruction.

Elizabeth K Geivett v. David M Geivett

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 29, 2018

However, the court decided “to hear some testimony about whether the conditions were met so that [it could] determine whether [David] qualifies for this evidentiary hearing.” … “There is clearly . . . reason to appeal,” Judge Bakker emphasized, but insufficient evidence of actual bias to support judicial disqualification.

People of Michigan v. Najee Sharif Wilkins

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2017

At trial, Walker’s family and friends established that he took the bus to Benjamin Street on the night of his death, intending to go to Garmon’s house. … Furthermore, even if this Court were to consider Thomas’s letter and affidavit, defendant still failed to establish the factual predicate for his claim.

Elizabeth K Geivett v. David M Geivett

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 29, 2018

However, the court decided “to hear some testimony about whether the conditions were met so that [it could] determine whether [David] qualifies for this evidentiary hearing.” … “There is clearly . . . reason to appeal,” Judge Bakker emphasized, but insufficient evidence of actual bias to support judicial disqualification.

People of Michigan v. Shetoan Dannard Coates

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2016

evidence was relevant to the issues of motive and intent, which are recognized non-character purposes for admitting evidence under MRE 404(b)(1), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the evidence qualified … Thus, the jury’s verdict clearly refutes Shelton Coats’s suggestion that the jury may have inaccurately attributed Shetoan Coates’s statement to him.

People of Michigan v. Victor Graham Shivers

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2017

Because the statement was made by defendant and used against him at trial, it qualifies, as defendant admits, as a party opponent admission pursuant to MRE 801(d)(2)(A). … -6- by the prosecution that it would take a “fairly street savvy [juror] to figure out that the individuals are flashing gang signs[,]” an objective view of the photographs clearly

People of Michigan v. Victor Graham Shivers

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2017

Because the statement was made by defendant and used against him at trial, it qualifies, as defendant admits, as a party opponent admission pursuant to MRE 801(d)(2)(A). … -6- by the prosecution that it would take a “fairly street savvy [juror] to figure out that the individuals are flashing gang signs[,]” an objective view of the photographs clearly

People of Michigan v. Robert John Vandeusen

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2018

Thus, Kowalski instructs that a counsel’s statement that he has no objection qualifies as an express approval of a trial court’s comments to the jury, and therefore constitutes a waiver of a known right. … It must be exercised in words which convey clearly to the jury the fact that the judge is commenting rather than instructing. The court’s charge or instructions to the jury delineate their duty.

Lisa Griffey v. Department of Corrections

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 2022

Although not clearly expressed by defendant, this argument is related to the materiality of the term “mammy” in this case. … On another occasion, Hester was asked to perform the work of an electrician, which he was not qualified to do.

People of Michigan v. Joshua Michael Rosebush

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 2022

The trial court’s factual finding that it was defendant who initiated the subsequent conversation with the police, after the initial invocation of the right to counsel, was not clearly erroneous in light of the evidence presented … Presumably, he is referring to the fact that that statute states that a person, to be qualified as a juror, must “[n]ot have been convicted of a felony.” MCL 600.1307a(1)(e).

Ruth Jarrett-Cooper v. United Airlines Incorporated

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2017

discretion, which occurs “when the trial court’s decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.”25 The trial court’s factual findings supporting its decision are reviewed for clear error.26 “A finding is clearly … By contrast, in the instant case United redacted information from its billing statements on the basis of the attorney work product qualified privilege.