Case law

In re Ellis

294 Mich. App. 30 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2011

A physician qualified as an expert in child abuse and neglect, however, was able to explain the injuries. … The trial court did not clearly err by finding that the statutory grounds for termination of respondents’ parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of respondents’ parental rights

Glen Lake-Crystal River Watershed Riparians v. Glen Lake Ass'n

264 Mich. App. 523 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2005

Further, we do not conclude that the trial court’s order was clearly erroneous on the merits and we affirm. I. … There is a clearly established relationship between the lake and the river. The river provides upstream drainage from the lake and the stream has its own downstream flow requirements and impacts on downstream riparians.

Watson v. EMP. INS. CO. OF WAUSAU

50 Mich. App. 597 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 1973

In adopting this view, Michigan joins a loose majority of jurisdictions which find no statutory support for a grant of immunity to the insurer. … For example, in Megge, supra, jury questions clearly arose from conflicting evidence.

Azzar v. PRIMEBANK, FSB

198 Mich. App. 512 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 1993

The motion is properly granted when the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual dispute could justify a right to recovery. … The motion was properly granted because the claim was so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could justify a right to recovery. Shuttleworth, supra.

Morrison v. City of East Lansing

255 Mich. App. 505 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 6, 2003

IMMUNITY On appeal, plaintiffs first argue that the city is not immune from its plan-of-development ordinance, and thus the trial court erred in determining otherwise. … or lack of immunity from its own land-regulation ordinances.

Bauer v. City of Garden City

139 Mich. App. 354 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 1984

Summary judgment was proper only if plaintiffs claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly furnish a basis for recovery. … Defendant raises no defense on governmental immunity. In any event, we do not view ownership of a shopping center parking lot as a "governmental function”. MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107).

People v. Anderson

298 Mich. App. 10 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 2012

material” that he had possessed for purposes of qualifying for the affirmative defense provided under § 8 of Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act, 1 MCL 333.26428(a)(2), and (2) that it erred when it determined that he could … PEOPLE v KOLANEK In Kolanek, our Supreme Court clarified the nature and scope of the Medical Marihuana Act’s immunity provision provided under § 4, MCL 333.26424, and the affirmative defense provided under § 8, MCL 333.26428

People v. Reid

113 Mich. App. 262 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1982

The prosecutor and the criminal defendant may not — even with the trial court’s acquiescence — contractually suspend this well-established rule that a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects. … In this regard it has been stated that "while a plea bargain permits a defendant to waive that to which he does have a right (e.g., a trial), it does not permit him to arrogate that to which he is clearly not entitled.”

Bivens v. City of Grand Rapids

190 Mich. App. 455 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 1991

The motion can only be granted if the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify recovery. Id. … This Court in Figueroa also found that the Legislature, in enacting the governmental immunity act, MCL 691.1401 et seq.; MSA 3.996(101) et seq., intended to occupy the entire field of governmental liability and that the city

Keagan Farris v. John H McKaig III

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 17, 2018

Based on the duties of an LGAL, it is clearly a guardian; after an LGAL is appointed in child protective proceedings, it has the statutory authority and duty to care for the child by advocating for the child’s best interests … Despite the fact that MCL 712A.13a differentiates between a GAL and an LGAL, MCL 712A.13a(1) begins with the qualifier, “As used in this section and sections 2, 6b, 13b, 17c, 17d, 18f, 19, 19a, 19b, and 19c of this chapter

Walker v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Products, Inc

217 Mich. App. 705 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 1996

However, it makes little sense to hold that the fda’s premarket approval process qualifies as a ‘specific requirement applicable to a particular device.’ 21 CFR 808.1(d) (emphasis added). … of law (whether established by statute, ordinance, regulation, or court decision).”

Reeves v. Kmart Corp.

229 Mich. App. 466 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1998

Meagher similarly does not establish that Michigan has adopted § 411. … The trial court held that the mdot was immune from suit under the highway exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102), because the speed limit signs would not have been on the traveled portion of the

Regan v. WASHTENAW CTY. BD. OF RD. COM'RS

249 Mich. App. 153 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2002

In addition, the allegations in the Regans' complaint clearly state no more than a casual link between the operation of the broom tractor and Dona Regan's injuries. … "resulting from" do not carry some magical quality such that these precise words must be pleaded in order to establish an exception to governmental immunity.

People of Michigan v. Dalton Duane Carll

322 Mich. App. 690 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2018

People v Duncan, 494 Mich 713, 722-723; 835 NW2d 399 (2013). 5 We also reject defendant’s assertion that Bittner should not have been qualified as an expert because he had never before been qualified to provide expert testimony … The word “continuing” clearly refers to an event or process that takes place over time. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed) defines “continuing” as “to keep going or add to.”

Shirilla v. City of Detroit

208 Mich. App. 434 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1995

(b) A person is physically qualified to drive a motor vehicle if that person— (3) Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control .... … Pursu *442 ant to MCL 480.12k; MSA 9.1666(2k), an applicant for a driver position who is not physically qualified to drive under 49 CFR 391.41 and who is otherwise qualified to drive may be granted a waiver.

Pohlod v. General Motors Corp.

40 Mich. App. 583 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 1972

The court ruled: "This man has been introduced and qualified as an expert in metals, the failure of metals. This is what he’s testified. … The trial court’s submission of this question to the jury was not clearly erroneous. Affirmed. Costs to plaintiffs. All concurred.

Patillo v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

199 Mich. App. 450 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 1993

Defendants next claim that even if the statements were defamatory, they were made under a qualified privilege. We disagree. … Therefore, the statements made by Neal were not made under a qualified privilege.

Albro v. Drayer

303 Mich. App. 758 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 2014

It has been long established that a trial court’s determination of the qualifications of an expert witness is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. … Clearly, none of defendant’s experts were as familiar with the Chrisman-Snook procedure as was defendant.

Real Life Living Services Inc v. City of Manistee Housing Commissi

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2016

(c) Just cause for the termination of the right of use and occupation, so that a tenant may be clearly apprised of the precise reasons for a termination. … And here, the general activity was clearly the operation and management of Century Terrace, not the allegedly tortious communications.

Ivan Williams Jr v. Washtenaw Independent School District

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 2021

In other words, to establish a Title II violation of the ADA, a plaintiff must prove that (1) he or she is a qualified individual with a disability, (2) he or she was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits … We conclude that plaintiff failed to establish the existence of either requirement.