Case law

Tucker v. Sandlin

126 Mich. App. 701 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 1983

Plaintiffs appeal brief clearly demonstrates that each element of the first challenged hypothetical was supported by trial testimony. … This initial question was properly asked for the purpose of establishing Rothgeb’s standard of care.

McKee v. Department of Transportation

132 Mich. App. 714 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1984

The law is well established that the shoulders of a highway are designed for vehicular use and, thus, the state is obligated to maintain them in reasonable repair "so that they are reasonably safe for their intended use as … In Precopio v Detroit, 14 the Supreme Court held that damage awards in non-jury trials are governed by GCR 1963, 517.1, which tracks the language of the "clearly erroneous” rule of FR Civ P 52(a).

General Motors Corp. v. Department of Treasury

290 Mich. App. 355 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2010

Since no citizen enjoys immunity from that burden, its retroactive imposition does not necessarily infringe due process ....” … This title clearly states the act’s general purpose, and all details in 2007 PA 103 are germane to this object.

J & J Construction Co. v. Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen, Local 1

245 Mich. App. 722 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 2001

They contend that they were engaged in political advocacy that was immune from suit under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. … This leaves the question of qualified immunity for petitioners under the First Amendment in cases of defamation.

Obey v. McFADDEN CORPORATION

138 Mich. App. 767 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1984

Rebecca McClear also testified that plaintiff was given immunity in return for his cooperation. Plaintiff testified in rebuttal only that he was not aware that he was granted immunity. … Plaintiff has not shown that defendant treated him unfairly or violated his contract by according his case this extensive consideration. *781 Clearly there was no breach.

Daretha Braziel v. City of Benton Harbor Water Department

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2025

Act (“GTLA”), MCL 691.1401 et seq., on the basis of either absolute or qualified immunity. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendant contends that, even if this Court disagrees that he had absolute immunity, he had qualified immunity.

Toriano Hudson v. Department of Corrections

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2024

Considering the relevant statute, the Court stated that unlike the governmental tort liability act, the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PWDCRA”), MCL 37.1101 et seq., “waived governmental immunity without establishing … * * * In Christie, our Supreme Court clearly declared the meaning of the law as it existed, based on the unambiguous statutory language, and corrected

Gerzeski v. Department of State Highways

68 Mich. App. 91 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 1976

Unfortunately, the tragic deaths with which we are herein concerned did not occur within a factual framework which clearly fits one of the exceptions. … The crucial facts established in the lower court are as follows: 1. The borrow pit was intentionally located in line with an existing drain so that it would fill with water. 2.

People v. Crousore

159 Mich. App. 304 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1987

To establish these charges the prosecution must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First, as to Count Two, that James M. … We conclude that the trial court’s decision not to suppress evidence of the pistol was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we would reverse on this basis.

20230221_C358408_39_358408.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2023

Thus, only the second element for qualified immunity is at issue. … Plaintiffs’ reasoning is clearly flawed.

First Security Savings Bank v. Aitken

226 Mich. App. 291 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 1998

First Security will only lend to qualified owner occupant borrowers. … on construction loans for qualified borrowers.

ProMed Healthcare v. City of Kalamazoo

249 Mich. App. 490 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 1, 2002

ProMed claimed that it qualified for either the “public health exemption,” MCL 211.7r, or the “charitable purpose exemption,” MCL 211.7o. … Clearly, the parties did not stipulate that ProMed actually provided an “appropriate level of charity care” to members of the public during the tax years at issue.

People v. Provost

77 Mich. App. 667 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 1977

The rule adopted in Schram, supra, is that not every improper contact with a jury presents grounds for a mistrial and the appellate *672 court will reverse only when prejudice is affirmatively shown or facts clearly establish … That testimony contained statements which would have incriminated defendant in the prior crime were it not for the immunity.

Meridian Charter Township v. Ingham County Clerk

285 Mich. App. 581 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2009

Summary disposition should be granted only where the evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact. Maiden, 461 Mich at 120 . … the qualified electors in the township, to vote on a proposed annexation.

Robinson v. Emmet County Road Commission

72 Mich. App. 623 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 1976

Clearly this act remains as part of the governmental immunity of this state. … MCLA 247.651, et seq.; MSA 9.1097(1), et seq., does establish the state trunkline highway system under the control of the state highway commission.

McDOUGALL v. ELIUK

218 Mich. App. 501 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 1996

Second, in giving effect to the common-sense meaning of each provision, the evidentiary rule clearly embodies the same determination made by the Michigan Legislature that expert testimony is required to establish the standard … Robia would have been qualified as an expert under the evidentiary rule.

Vanderwerp v. Plainfield Charter Township

278 Mich. App. 624 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2008

Exemptions are never presumed, the burden is on a claimant to establish clearly his right to exemption, and an alleged grant of exemption will be strictly construed and cannot be made out by inference or implication but must … In sum, *633 the LLC, not the trust, owned the property, but the LLC did not qualify as an “owner” for purposes of the homestead exemption, nor did petitioners qualify as owners.

Huron Residential Services for Youth, Inc v. Pittsfield Charter Twp

152 Mich. App. 54 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 21, 1986

Exemptions are never presumed, the burden is on a claimant to establish clearly his right to exemption, and an alleged grant of exemption will be strictly construed and cannot be made out by inference or implication but must … We believe that petitioner qualifies as a charitable institution.

Farmer v. Holton Public Schools

138 Mich. App. 99 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1981

The commission concluded "that if a school board wishes to impose qualifications higher than those implied by certification, it is incumbent upon the school board to establish its definition of the term 'qualified’ ”. … Further, and without question, a school board may not establish standards from the viewpoint of having a more qualified candidate than the tenured teacher for the vacancy.

Berman v. LaRose

16 Mich. App. 55 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 1969

Although plaintiff clearly has suffered misfortune, we have found no basis for her recovery, either from the State or the defendant, as an owner of the abutting premises. … State immunity from liability in the exercise of a governmental function applies in the instant matter, especially since the injury occurred off a road surface. PA 1964, No 170, § 1 et seq.