Case law

People v. Pierce

272 Mich. App. 394 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 2007

Therefore, defendant cannot establish that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. … However, the trial court made clear that the hearing was not for the purpose of determining whether defendant could establish entrapment by estoppel.

People v. Ricky Smith

85 Mich. App. 32 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 1978

Any addition to established procedures should also be so regulated. … On appeal, we will reverse only if the trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous. Id. On reviewing the record, we do not find that the trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous. V.

Tomkiewicz v. Detroit News, Inc.

246 Mich. App. 662 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 2001

of his high rank in the police department, and (3) plaintiff could not establish defendant’s actual malice. … It is well established that the United States Constitution affords a qualified privilege protecting the making of defamatory statements concerning public officials 3 when the statements re *668 late to the official’s conduct

Guzowski v. Detroit Racing Ass'n, Inc.

130 Mich. App. 322 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1983

Guzowski gave her opinion as to the value of Shapely Miss, plaintiffs counsel asked the court to rule that she was qualified to give expert testimony on the issue of valuation. … However, we are satisfied that she was qualified by "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” to testify as an expert. MRE 702. 7 Indeed, Ms.

Page v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

172 Mich. App. 636 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1988

On that basis we concluded that defendant was barred from relitigating the issue of governmental immunity. … Similarly, here the issue of res judicata was clearly before this Court when this case was first here in 1979. This Court clearly held that the narrow rule of res judicata applied.

People v. Johns

18 Mich. App. 25 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1969

Two issues raised by defendant are clearly without merit. He contends that the contempt statute is both civil and unconstitutional. The statute is criminal, but with a limited purge provision. People v. … . *28 Since it is impractical to require the grand juror to establish the materiality of his questions, the burden is on defendant to show their immateriality. He has not done so.

People v. Lamont Crawford

66 Mich. App. 581 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 8, 1976

In the present case, both factors have been *588 established. We have previously decided that a psychologist is qualified to evaluate a defendant’s competence and to offer in-court expert testimony on that subject. … Moreover, the contents of those reports were clearly collateral to the issues at trial, especially once it had been established that the search of the prison failed to disclose the defendant’s presence and that the defendant

Barak v. Oakland County Drain Commissioner

246 Mich. App. 591 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2001

Ross concerned a question of governmental immunity in the context of tort liability, not the authority to act pursuant to chapter 20 of the Drain Code. … Clearly, it is within the township’s ability to designate whether it seeks to locate, establish, and construct a drain pursuant to § 462 and § 463, MCL 280.463, or to assume jurisdiction “over all or a specified part of the

Michigan Association of Psychotherapy Clinics v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan

118 Mich. App. 505 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 1982

how this amount was established. … The trial court’s second finding regarding price-fixing is also clearly erroneous.

Stadelmann v. Glen Falls Insurance

5 Mich. App. 536 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1967

Under the facts of this case, does plaintiff qualify as “a resident of Mr. Stadelmann’s household?” … A spouse of the insured or a person under 21 years of age in the care of an in *541 sured clearly qualifies a person as an integral part of a family.

Miller v. Inglis

223 Mich. App. 159 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 1997

Clearly, this is wrong. Plaintiff was on duty transporting a prisoner through another jurisdiction — the accident occurred during her working hours. … Pursuant to MCR 2.111(F)(3), immunity granted by law (such as the fireman’s rule) is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded in a party’s responsive pleading.

Joba Const. Co., Inc. v. Burns & Roe, Inc.

121 Mich. App. 615 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1982

Once plaintiff had estab *640 lished a prima facie case of tortious interference with prospective advantageous economic relations, it was incumbent upon defendant to establish the defense of qualified privilege. 4 Restatement … Moreover, the trial court properly instructed the jury that if it were established that defendant had a qualified privilege, defendant would be presumed to have acted in good faith and with a proper motive and that this presumption

Marsha Garcia v. Rose Laskowski

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2015

641 (1984), governs whether the employee has qualified immunity under the Government Tort Liability Act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. … Such a finding would support that defendants acted in good faith and were entitled to qualified governmental immunity.

People of Michigan v. Mark Jonathan Christensen

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2021

“[S]pecific factual findings made by the trial court in a § 4 immunity hearing are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, and questions of law surrounding the grant or denial of § 4 immunity are reviewed de novo.” … A qualifying patient or primary caregiver can only satisfy the first element of immunity for any charge if all conduct underlying that charge occurred during a time when the qualifying patient or primary

Dedes v. South Lyon Community Schools

199 Mich. App. 385 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1993

Liability for negligence does not attach unless the plaintiff establishes that the injury in question was proximately caused by the defendant’s negligence. … Plaintiffs rely on language in a footnote in Richardson v Jackson Co, 432 Mich 377, 387, n 11 ; 443 NW2d 105 (1989), that seems to substitute "a proximate cause” for “the proximate cause” in the statute, but that language is clearly

People v. Donald

103 Mich. App. 613 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1981

Although defendant claims the prosecutor did not lay a proper foundation for the admission of the preliminary examination testimony, a review of the trial transcript clearly indicates that the substance and the time, place … the operator of the device was competent, (3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording, (4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made, (5) a showing of the manner of the

Muskegon Area Rental Ass'n v. City of Muskegon

244 Mich. App. 45 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2001

These charter provisions clearly declare that state tax law applies unless the charter provides otherwise. … The ordinance does not include and affect all persons of the same class (businesses) and extends immunities or privileges to an arbitrary class (businesses who are not owners of rental properties and who are immune from the

Green v. Department of Corrections

30 Mich. App. 648 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1971

Secondly, defendant urges that it was error for the trial court to deny its affirmative defense of sovereign immunity. We disagree. … . 17 *660 The state legislature enacted a statute which requires all employers to establish and maintain conditions of work which are reasonably safe and healthful for their employees. 18 Although the prison-inmate relationship

David Krieger v. Department of Environment Great Lakes and Energy

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 7, 2023

Although the state government is generally immune from tort liability, such immunity does not apply to inverse condemnation claims. … But Bailey involved a motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity, id. at 385, which is more analogous to MCR 2.116(C)(7).

People v. Brewer

88 Mich. App. 756 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 1979

.; MSA 27A.901, et seq., and the appropriate Supreme Court promulgated rules concerning the State Bar of Michigan, rules 4(a) and 4(b), clearly provide that payment of state bar dues is a prerequisite to the practice of law … This fact alone does not render defendant’s claim nugatory, since it is clearly established that the waiver of a constitutionally derived right must be intentional and therefore must be knowingly made.