Case law

People v. Gratz

35 Mich. App. 42 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1971

The defendant’s guilt or innocence and the weight of the evidence are clearly beside the point. … Three of the five who acted were the duly qualified members of the board, but it was unclear who of the five were the three who were qualified.

Love v. City of Detroit

270 Mich. App. 563 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2006

Because the governmental immunity statute admits of only one proximate cause, "the" rather than "a" proximate cause, the allegedly negligent firefighter was immune from suit. Id. at 63, 684 N.W.2d 894 . … On the facts in this case, a delay of 40 to 60 minutes before firefighters equipped to fight a fire or to begin rescue efforts arrived may certainly qualify as grossly negligent and, therefore, not reasonably foreseeable.

Ziginow v. Redford Jaycees

133 Mich. App. 259 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1983

Plaintiffs’ cross-examination of the most clearly qualified witness, a former Wayne County traffic safety director by the name of Russell Harrison, resulted in testimony that the conditions at and surrounding Bell Creek Park … Having failed to establish any violation of a standard of care, plaintiffs had obvious problems with causation.

People v. Thomas

46 Mich. App. 312 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1973

Cases involving the defendant’s absence during testimonial proceedings are rare, presumably because absence then is so clearly incompatible with a fair trial that the question simply does not arise except as to questions … Both majority and dissent in Snyder refer to examples of distinct constitutional rights for the exercise of which a defendant’s presence is necessary, their very stature as such establishing their necessity to a fair hearing

People v. Clark

124 Mich. App. 410 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1983

Lyons’s admissions were clearly against his penal interest; he was not granted immunity from prosecution for his role in the breaking and entering. … Although the affidavit could have contained more information (which was then available) establishing Lyons’s reliability, we believe it was sufficient to support the issuance of the warrant.

People v. George Johnson

5 Mich. App. 257 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1966

The prosecuting attorney objected that the question was not relevant, that the witness was not qualified as an expert in the field and that there was not any need for special knowledge in said field. … The admissibility of an opinion is clearly within the trial court’s discretion, and we hold that such discretion was not abused.

Tomei v. General Motors Corp.

194 Mich. App. 180 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 4, 1992

Further, he had understood that if he opted for layoff, he would have to be rehired by gmc for at least one day following any layoff in order to qualify for retirement. … Such information clearly lies within the knowledge, reasoning, and control of the employer. Cf. Cooper , 103.

Compupharm-LTC v. Department of Treasury

225 Mich. App. 274 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1997

The Court clearly held that the transactional circumstances under which a particular drug is obtained are not a determining factor in deciding whether the transaction fits within the scope of the tax exemption for prescription … Therefore, the sales at issue will only qualify for the exemption if the nursing homes can be properly characterized as federal agencies or instrumentalities.

Thorne v. Nicholson

32 Mich. App. 223 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1971

Plaintiff is bound by a high degree of proof to establish his right that the writ of mandamus should issue. The record below shows that the city officials acted clearly within the scope of their power. … However, unlike Savage , plaintiff here was not bypassed for someone less qualified. Rather, the position which plaintiff sought was eliminated.

Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault v. McCa

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2016

] -2- Nor does the FOIA extend blanket immunity from disclosure of public records to any specific “public body.” … In 1978, the Legislature amended the no-fault act by establishing the MCAA “as the means for reimbursing each member insurer for all ‘ultimate loss sustained under personal protection insurance coverages in excess of $250,000

Carleton Buck v. City of Highland Park

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2015

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred when it ruled that Officer White’s conduct was protected by qualified immunity. We disagree. … The plaintiff has the burden to show that a police officer is not protected by qualified immunity before trial. Id.

Sebring v. City of Berkley

247 Mich. App. 666 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2001

Defendant road commission argues that pursuant to this reading of MCL 691.1402(1), plaintiff cannot maintain her cause of action because her testimony establishes that she was in the Robina Street crosswalk when she was injured … Subsection 10(b) clearly indicates that a crosswalk exists wherever it is properly marked, regardless of where it falls in the roadbed, and even in the absence of adjoining sidewalks.

Thomas v. Michigan Employment Security Commission

154 Mich. App. 736 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 1986

Plaintiff also alleged that from 1977 to 1982 he was denied unspecified promotions for which he was qualified and that similarly qualified white individuals were not subjected to these forms of discrimination. … At trial, plaintiff will have to establish that acts of racial discrimination occurred within three years of August 6, 1984, in order to prevail. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Mackey v. Department of Human Services

289 Mich. App. 688 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 7, 2010

A finding is clearly erroneous when, “on review of the whole record, this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. at 235 . … Petitioner admitted at oral argument before the trial court that the purpose in establishing the L.L.C. was to allow her to qualify for Medicaid without suffering a divestment penalty. 8 That admission, coupled with the timing

Manning v. Amerman

229 Mich. App. 608 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 1998

Determine any question arising in the administration or distribution of any trust, including questions of construction of wills and trusts; instruct trustees, and determine relative thereto the existence or nonexistence of an immunity … Proponents of the 1989 amendment argued that it would “consolidate authority over wills, trusts, and estates, and more clearly establish the probate court as the entity responsible for such matters, thus simplifying tlie

Timm Smith v. Township of Holly

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2015

However, Odom specifically addressed “the affirmative defense of individual governmental immunity” and, as a result, specifically focused on the circumstances under which “governmental employees enjoy qualified immunity for … In Smith, the Michigan Supreme Court established that there is no exception to governmental immunity for intentional torts with regard to governmental agencies themselves.

Midland Cogeneration Venture Ltd. Partnership v. Public Service Commission

199 Mich. App. 286 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1993

the purpa does not immunize it from complying with the law and procedural rules applicable to discovery. … Moreover, it cannot be said that mcv was established as a separate entity for the purpose of avoiding regulation by the psc; rather, mcv was formed for the purpose of operating a qualifying cogeneration facility, which under

Jamieson v. Luce-Mackinac-Alger-Schoolcraft District Health Department

198 Mich. App. 103 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 1993

It is not established pursuant to a finding of need but under a compulsory statute. … Once established, the district or county health department is not primarily a care-giver, but an administrative agency.

Patricia Lesko v. Supreme Felons Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 2026

Doing that here establishes that plaintiff qualifies as “the requesting person” for purposes of MCL 15.240(1)(b). … The Detroit Free Press Court never addressed whether Christoff was a “requesting person” under Michigan’s FOIA, but the Court clearly accepted that Christoff, as an individual, requested the documents, and the pertinent question

Illinois Employers Insurance v. Dragovich

139 Mich. App. 502 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 1984

Plaintiff clearly limited its liability under the policy provision at issue, and we cannot alter or rewrite the parties' contract. Affirmed. WAHLS, J. (dissenting). … the record before us, I cannot determine whether Virta simply labeled his claim as a negligence count to avoid the assault or battery exclusions of the insurance contract or whether some facts are available which tend to establish