Case law

Feldman v. Stein Building & Lumber Co.

6 Mich. App. 180 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 1967

sanitation, fire protection, maintenance, alteration and improvement of dwellings; to define the classes of dwellings affected by the act, to establish administrative requirements and to establish remedies and fix penalties … case — the validity of a contractual agreement which would immunize the landlord from liability for breach of this statutory duty. *184 While affirming the principle of freedom of contract, we note the well-settled rule,

People v. Ruff

108 Mich. App. 716 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 1981

Defendant also was granted immunity from prosecution for any information contained in the statement and agreed to an unconditional waiver of preliminary examination on any charge arising from the agreement. … a new rule but rather indicated that it was applying the rule established previously in Stratton, supra, and Hatt, supra.

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

Younkin v. Zimmer

304 Mich. App. 719 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2014

Here, the trial court determined that Younkin had established grounds for mandamus. … Indeed, as the trial court correctly stated, Dimondale would not qualify as the appropriate “locality” for any injury that occurred in Genesee County.

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.

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

In Re Americana Foundation

145 Mich. App. 735 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 1985

In order to have jurisdiction over the Americana Foundation as a trust, it would have to have been established that the Americana Foundation was a trust. … Finally, the articles of incorporation clearly establish a charitable purpose.

Ireland v. Edwards

230 Mich. App. 607 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 1998

The statements that suggested that plaintiff abused her child are clearly defamatory, as is the statement that plaintiff was a liar. … We do not believe that actions for false light invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress have any greater right to such immunity.

Bradshaw v. Blaine

1 Mich. App. 50 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1965

Smith, Chester, and Pious were well qualified and competent to give testimony as expert witnesses. … On appeal, the Court does not substitute its judgment on fact for that of the trial judge unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction. In re Granville Estate (1956), 345 Mich 495 ; Hall v.

Zaremba Equipment, Inc. v. Harco National Insurance

280 Mich. App. 16 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2008

Consequently, any error attending the introduction of the letters qualifies as harmless. … On the contrary, the policy clearly stated a coverage limitation of $525,000. See Wilkie v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 469 Mich 41, 47-51 ; 664 NW2d 776 (2003).

Roberts v. Mecosta County General Hospital

252 Mich. App. 664 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2002

However, defendants direct us to no authority to establish that the stated standard of care is incorrect, nor do they direct us to what they believe is the proper standard of care. … To establish a requirement that the notice of intent must accurately state the standard of practice or care would read into the statute a requirement that the statute does not create.

Gail Foster v. Kevin Szlaga

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 2016

that he is entitled to governmental immunity as a matter of law.” … Keeping in mind that defendant has the burden of proof in establishing that he is entitled to governmental immunity as a matter of law, Oliver, 290 Mich App at 684-85, I believe that reasonable minds could differ as to whether

Practical Political Consulting, Inc. v. Secretary of State

287 Mich. App. 434 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2010

Section 13(l)(d) of FOIA clearly refers not only to “[r]ecords” but also to “information.” … The Secretary clearly recognizes the concept of accountability.

Deitz v. Wometco West Michigan Tv, Inc

160 Mich. App. 367 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 19, 1987

The fair comment rule is set out in 1 Harper & James, Torts, § 5.28, p 456: The principle of "fair comment” affords legal immunity for the honest expression of opinion on matters of legitimate public interest when based upon … The test is whether plaintiff’s claim, on the pleadings, is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development can possibly justify a right to recovery.

People of Michigan v. Alton Fontenot Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2020

Because the entire purpose for keeping the logs is to establish the reliability of individual test results for prosecutions, they are clearly not just ordinary and routine administrative check-boxes, and I am unconvinced … At a minimum, they should not be admitted as business records without establishing their trustworthiness.

Emily R Varran v. Peter J Granneman

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2015

2.116(C)(10) based on a claim of governmental immunity[.] … The trial court initially qualified Dr. Fishman, a licensed, practicing psychologist, as an expert pursuant to MRE 702, and permitted her to testify as such. Dr.

Cole v. Michigan Mutual Insurance

116 Mich. App. 51 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 4, 1982

However, where evidence clearly establishes an increase in hazard, the trial court may find, as a matter of law, that the hazard was increased. Spinner, supra, Freed’s, supra. Here, the evidence established that Ms. … Concerning plaintiffs’ cross-appeal, we believe that the trial court’s ruling was correct and therefore not clearly erroneous.

Brunson v. E & L TRANSPORT CO.

177 Mich. App. 95 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 15, 1989

You are saying the reason she wasn’t qualified was because we said she wasn’t qualified. The reason she wasn’t qualified is because she flunked the test. … The two-prong test to determine if a conflict pre-emption exists was most clearly articulated in Ray v Atlantic Richfield Co, 435 US 151, 158 ; 98 S Ct 988 ; 55 L Ed 2d 179 (1978): " 'A conflict will be found "where compliance

Moerman v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission

129 Mich. App. 584 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 1983

Stockmar was not qualified to testify as to the effect of alcohol on behavior. … Given his education and experience in accident reconstruction, Capman was clearly qualified to offer his opinion on how the shoulder of the road would have affected a vehicle traveling on it.

Lee v. Detroit Medical Center

285 Mich. App. 51 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2009

MCL 722.625 then clarifies that the grant of immunity applies only to acts required by the Child Protection Law: [T]his immunity from civil or criminal liability extends only to acts done according to this act [reporting, … A statute must not be construed to abrogate established common-law principles by implication. Id. at 507-508 .