Case law

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.”

In Re Boursaw

239 Mich. App. 161 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2000

Christensen’s qualified speculations about the time it might take to be sure that respondent has mastered her behavior problems does not obscure the fact that he also believed that such progress is possible. … “that can only be rebutted by a showing that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interest.”

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS Ex Rel LANPHAR v. a & C CARRIERS

157 Mich. App. 534 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 1987

I certainly would not qualify them for that type of activity or recommend that they do it. … While it is true that claimant had the burden of establishing a violation of the handicappers’ act, respondent was defending the suit on the grounds that Lanphar’s back condition was related to his ability to perform 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 v. Barnett

163 Mich. App. 331 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 1987

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the trial court’s determination was not clearly erroneous. … It is well established that this Court will not second-guess trial counsel in matters of trial strategy.

Michigan Northern Railway Company v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

176 Mich. App. 706 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 1, 1989

The train engine is clearly excluded as a vehicle under the Vehicle Code. … We reject defendants’ contention that the train qualifies as a motor vehicle because it was being operated on a public highway when it entered the road crossing.

Rehab & Mobility Systems LLC v. Department of Treasury

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 18, 2026

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 … Significantly, MCL 205.51a(q) qualifies “device” with the terms “replacement, corrective, or supportive.”

Zoppi v. Chrysler Corp.

206 Mich. App. 172 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1994

Plaintiff did not qualify because he was forty-nine years old. … To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must establish that he was a member of a protected class and that he was subjected to adverse employment action because of his age.

Yarrick v. Village of Kent City

180 Mich. App. 410 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 1989

of trespass-nuisance in the case law prior to 1964, in light of its constitutional origins, persuades us that the Legislature intended, through the language of the second sentence of § 7, to preserve the exception in its established … Utilizing the same approach, we thus reject several other versions of the exception, claimed by the plaintiffs in these cases, that would clearly extend the scope of the exception beyond that which was recognized in 1964,

Landry v. City of Dearborn

259 Mich. App. 416 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2004

Similarly, Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (2d ed), p 1339, defines “personnel” as “persons employed in any work, enterprise, service, establishment, etc.” … Furthermore, in order to qualify for the position of police officer with defendant, a candidate must have taken the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (mcoles) physical agility and written tests, and qualify

Coalition for a Safer Detroit v. Detroit City Clerk

295 Mich. App. 362 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2012

The petition shall be signed by at least 5% of the qualified and registered electors of the municipality. … The duties of the city clerk are clearly stated in both MCL 117.25 and the Detroit City Charter.

Mulcahy v. Argo Steel Construction Co.

4 Mich. App. 116 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 1966

It is this: There is no immunity from liability if the work to be done is of such character that it necessarily subjects third persons to unusual danger. … “One of the exceptions to this rule is that there is no immunity from responsibility when the work to be done is of such *127 character that it necessarily subjects third persons to unusual danger.” Barlow v.

Dean v. Tucker

205 Mich. App. 547 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 1994

In professional malpractice actions, an expert is usually required to establish the standard of conduct, breach of the standard, and causation. … We find no abuse of discretion for not finding the expert qualified.

People of Michigan v. John Christopher Placencia

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2015

Additionally, the evidence established that earlier, in November 2011 (still post McQueen, 293 Mich App 644), the police had executed a search warrant relative to 1 “When a qualifying patient elects a primary caregiver … There is no mention of immunity for assisting unconnected qualifying patients.

People v. Noble

23 Mich. App. 100 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1970

Defendant argues that testimony of the caretaker relating her conversation with the prosecutrix 12 hours after the incident was hearsay and that it does not qualify for admission under the res gestae exception. … It must be determined largely in each case by the peculiar facts and circumstances incident thereto * * * .” *102 The record in the present case clearly establishes that the prosecutrix was highly excited and upset when she

20241223_C366787_41_366787.Opn.Pdf

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2024

Further, Armitage and Goetz were entitled to “qualified immunity under 42 USC 1983 because their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights such that a reasonable officer in their situation would … Although subsection (2)(c) establishes an exception to the grant of immunity to an officer or employee of a governmental agency, it does not provide that a governmental agency otherwise entitled to immunity

Aaron v. Michigan Boiler & Engineering

185 Mich. App. 687 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 1990

This case clearly presents the question of the scope of the appellate commission’s power to review findings of fact made by a magistrate. … (or as in this case two qualified experts) who has a rational basis for his or her views.

People v. Abraham

234 Mich. App. 640 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1999

He clearly was not. Second, the issue is not whether defendant’s confession was voluntary. It clearly was. Third, the issue is not whether Miranda warnings were properly given to defendant. They clearly were. … He clearly did. Fifth, the issue is not whether defendant voluntarily did so. He clearly did.

People of Michigan v. Donald Joseph Koshmider II

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2019

Further, counsel was not ineffective for failing to request the instruction, because the direct and circumstantial evidence clearly established defendant’s guilt. … It is clearly established beyond a reasonable doubt that prisoners and incarcerated defendants have a constitutional right of access to the courts.

Melendres v. Soales

105 Mich. App. 73 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 1981

In any case the trial court’s order was unduly restrictive. 2 While the matter of plaintiff’s status as an illegal alien was clearly irrelevant on the question of liability, it was material and relevant to the issue of damages … A defendant who intentionally creates a condition with knowledge that it is substantially certain to interfere with plaintiffs property or person has established an intentional nuisance. 5 Prosser, Torts (4th ed), § 91, p