Case law

Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass'n

317 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2016

Nor does the FOIA extend blanket immunity from disclosure of public records to any specific “public body.” … In my view, this form of statutory amendment fully qualifies as “piecemeal.” 6 Nor am I persuaded that because § 13(1)(d) of the FOIA permits the Legislature to create additional exemptions, § 134(4) passes constitutional

Young v. City of Ann Arbor

119 Mich. App. 512 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 1982

The department’s rules clearly apply to a lockup and to a holding cell within a lockup. See 1979 AC, R 791.511(1) and R 791.557. … The testimony presented at trial clearly showed that defendants did not comply with either of these two rules.

Patelczyk v. Olson

95 Mich. App. 281 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1980

Lexmond’s testimony was clearly erroneous. His videotape deposition did not establish a jury-submissible case of malpractice. … Do you intend, may I ask at this time, do you intend to qualify Dr. del Regato to render an opinion on the standard of care? "MR.

in Re payne/pumphrey/fortson Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2015

To terminate parental rights to an Indian child, 25 USC 1912(f), MCL 712B.15(4), and MCR 3.977(G)(2) each require that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of a qualified expert witness, must establish … As a preliminary matter, the trial court properly established at least one of the statutory grounds for terminating Stenman’s parental rights to KP and DF.

In Re Kreft

148 Mich. App. 682 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 1986

We review the probate court’s determination under a clearly erroneous standard. In re Cornet, 422 Mich 274 ; 373 NW2d 536 (1985). There is no definition of "qualified expert witness” in the Indian Child Welfare Act. … We do not believe that the probate court clearly erred in finding that serious emotional or physical damage might come to the child if it remained in respondent’s custody, based on the testimony of *693 these qualified experts

Holman v. Rasak

281 Mich. App. 507 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 2008

“Under this authority, regulations have been promulgated establishing procedures for the uses and disclosure of such information.” Id. … “However, HIPAA clearly regulates the methods by which a physician may release a patient’s health information, including ‘oral’ medical records.” Id.

Timmons v. Department of Social Services

89 Mich. App. 330 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1979

After a hearing, the administrative law judge determined that the plaintiff qualified for ADC-I. … Given Congress’s clearly stated goal of uniformity in administering the ADC-U program, MCL 400.56d; MSA 16.456(4) is of doubtful validity.

Traverse Village LLC v. Northern Lakes Community Mental Health

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2014

In addition, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … established one.

Eddington v. Torrez

311 Mich. App. 198 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2015

-1- At issue in the present case is the second element, specifically whether statements made to police regarding criminal activity are absolutely privileged and therefore immune … The fact that this Court in Hall v Pizza Hut of America, Inc, 153 Mich App 609, 619-620; 396 NW2d 809 (1986), raised the hypothetical possibility that there would remain a qualified privilege if no absolute privilege exists

Lakeshore Community Hospital, Inc v. Perry

212 Mich. App. 396 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 1995

The trial court denied the motion, stating in part: The Court rejects Defendant’s argument that he is protected by a qualified form of immunity as provided by New York Times v Sullivan, 376 US 254 [ 84 S Ct 810 ; 11 L Ed … The hospital had been established in the community at least since the 1920s. For several years, it has been the only facility serving the community with an obstetric unit.

Velmer v. Baraga Area Schools

157 Mich. App. 489 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1987

A judicially recognized exception to the defense of governmental immunity is the establishment of an intentional nuisance in fact. … As such it remains protected from suit by governmental immunity.

Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University v. Labor Mediation Board

18 Mich. App. 435 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1970

Eastern Michigan University is an institution of higher education established by law having authority to grant baccalaureate degrees. … Without these confines, however, there is no reason to allow the regents to use their independence to thwart the clearly established public policy of the people of Michigan.”

Varran v. Granneman

312 Mich. App. 591 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2015

The judgment also established a parenting-time schedule. … The trial court initially qualified Fishman as an expert, in accordance with MRE 702, and permitted her to testify as such.

Gonzalez v. St John Hospital & Medical Center

275 Mich. App. 290 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2007

John counters that, as a resident, Vashi is clearly a general practitioner. … In other words, in addition to satisfying the requirements of MCL 600.2169(l)(a) and (b), a plaintiff must affirmatively establish that his or her proffered expert is “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience

In re England

314 Mich. App. 245 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 2016

Moreover, “[u]nder established rules of statutory construction, statutes are presumed constitutional, and courts have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.” … The trial court did not clearly err by considering O’Neill’s testimony. D.

People v. Bero

168 Mich. App. 545 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 29, 1988

In both motions, defendant requested an evidentiary hearing to establish the grounds supporting his motion. … Clearly, the federal and state charges against defendant did not arise, out of the same criminal act. Cooper, supra.

Bruce D Serven v. Health Quest Chiropractic Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2017

As to part of Serven’s claims, the circuit court denied the defendant board members’ motion for summary disposition based on quasi- judicial immunity and qualified immunity as well as failure to state a claim upon which relief … Clearly, the safeguards against biased individuals deciding a disciplinary matter did not work in this case.

Health Central v. Commissioner of Insurance

152 Mich. App. 336 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1986

The complaint further alleged that public disclosure of the information made it difficult for hmos to obtain qualified administrative and medical personnel. … This Court has weighed the potential benefit and potential harm and finds that public disclosure of this information could cause a problem in recruiting qualified staff.

Daugherty v. State

133 Mich. App. 593 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1984

We also held that the defense of governmental immunity is not a bar to a properly pled claim for an intentionally created nuisance in fact. … Since their affidavits specifically negated the factors found to establish a nuisance in Melendres, supra, defendants clearly established the existence of a meritorious defense to plaintiff’s claim.

Gard v. Michigan Produce Haulers

20 Mich. App. 402 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 1969

In the ease at bar the blood was withdrawn by an embalmer under conditions clearly indicating the probability of lack of chemical purity. … Under such circumstances the trial court did not abuse his' discretion in rejecting the results of the tests for plaintiffs did not meet the burden of establishing a proper foundation for the proffered evidence.”