Case law

People of Michigan v. Alenna Marie Rocafort

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 2, 2018

In this case, defendant may establish immunity under § 4 if she produces a preponderance of the evidence showing that at the time of the charged offenses she (i) possessed a valid registry identification card, … In other words, the language establishing limited immunity in § 4 of the MMMA expressly conditions that immunity on the person possessing no amount of marijuana that does not qualify as usable marijuana

Estate of Rowyn Vasquez v. Clark Edward Nugent Md

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2022

In Denney, the decedent could have brought a claim sounding in negligence under the highway exception to governmental immunity for lost earnings resulting from bodily injury that the decedent suffered when two potholes caused … Either way, Baker has clearly been overruled or superseded, and it was no longer “good law” long before this Court decided Denney.

Oakland County v. OAKLAND COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASS'N

282 Mich. App. 266 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 2009

The union argues that it was entitled to an evidentiary hearing before a hearing referee to allow it to establish that various classes of employees qualified for Act 312 arbitration. … officers could so qualify in this case.

Peter Bill & Associates, Inc v. Department of Natural Resources

93 Mich. App. 724 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1979

Therefore, we hold that defendant is not protected by sovereign immunity. *732 Defendant next argues that the evidence does not establish a tortious interference with plaintiffs contractual rights or economic expectancies … We hold that the court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. GCR 1963, 517.1.

Dunbar v. Department of Mental Health

197 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 1992

Plaintiff argues that the trial court clearly erred because it ignored MCL 600.6419(3)(a); MSA 27A.6419(3)(a). … As discussed above, the stronger line of reasoning has established that retaliatory discharge is an action sounding in contract.

In Re Elliott

218 Mich. App. 196 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 1996

In re Bridget R, 41 Cal App 4th 1483; 49 Cal Rptr 2d 507 (1996). 3 Clearly, if an interested tribe has intervened, it may present qualified expert witnesses of its own. 4 To the extent that In re Morgan, supra at 603, can … In re Kreft, supra at 687 (holding that the federal icwa requirements must be established “in addition to whatever state law grounds are asserted as a basis for terminating parental rights” [emphasis added]).

Zanni v. Medaphis Physician Services Corp.

237 Mich. App. 801 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1999

We review a trial court's order regarding a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) de novo "to determine if the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish … Accordingly, because plaintiff's claim of reverse age discrimination is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify recovery, the trial court did not err in

Auto-Owners Insurance v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

187 Mich. App. 617 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1991

The Court stated that treating the order in which insurers are identified for coverage as also establishing an order of priority would render superfluous the provision establishing priorities. Id., p 350. … A person injured in an accident outside the State of Michigan must look to the provisions of § 3111 to determine whether he qualifies for personal injury protection benefits.

Rosa Holliday v. Secretary of State

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2024

Nor can we conclude that anyone established prejudice. … First, the Legislature clearly had independent candidates in mind when it amended the statute.

Trevon Johnson v. Michigan Assigned Claims Plan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2024

The evidence established the motor was, at minimum, over 200 ccs. Consequently, defendants have established that plaintiff’s vehicle is not a moped because a moped’s motor cannot exceed 100 ccs in size. … Plaintiff argues for the first time on appeal that the photograph of the vehicle does not clearly show these modifications; however, plaintiff’s deposition testimony clearly established these features on the mini bike.

Rzepka v. Farm Estates, Inc.

83 Mich. App. 702 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1978

Since the individual defendants have clearly failed to establish their lack of knowledge, actual or constructive, we find them liable under MCL 451.810(b); MSA 19.776(410)(b) in their positions of directors and officers of … The corporation’s dire financial condition clearly qualifies under such a test. The trial court reached the correct decision. We find no error.

Muskegon Building & Construction Trades v. Muskegon Area Intermediate School District

130 Mich. App. 420 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 1983

, as in White Lake, plaintiff here was organized to establish and protect the rights and interests of its members. … Crucial to the Court’s holding in West Ottawa Public Schools was the fact that the state acts as a surety for the payment of qualified bonds when they become due.

People of Michigan v. Barry Davis Shaw

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2016

In my view, the record does not establish Dr. Guertin’s qualification under MRE 702 to render either opinion. Dr. Guertin testified that he is board certified in pediatrics and pediatric critical care. … An expert’s view on this subject is certainly relevant, but under MRE 702 must also qualify as reliable.

People v. Dobek

274 Mich. App. 58 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 14, 2007

The trial court’s role is to clearly present the case to the jury and to instruct it on the applicable law. Fennell, supra at 265 . … Barclay was clearly qualified as an expert witness in psychology relative to matters of sex and violence and to issues regarding sex offenders. Further, Barclay’s testimony was derived from specialized knowledge.

Delta Business Center LLC v. Delta Charter Township

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2019

of the local governmental unit that established the plant rehabilitation district or industrial development district.” … Clearly, leased property can be “industrial property.”

Brummitt v. Chaney

18 Mich. App. 59 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1969

The trial judge found Officer Taylor qualified on the basis of his experience to offer an expert opinion. We cannot say that this exercise of the trial judge’s discretion was clearly erroneous. … It has been clearly established in Michigan that an expert may render an opinion concerning the point of impact of an accident based merely upon debris found and skid marks. See Dudek v.

Traverse City Convention & Visitors Bureau v. Golden Swan Mgt LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2025

Under the act, a qualifying nonprofit corporation may establish a convention and tourism marketing program and impose an assessment upon owners of tourist lodging facilities to pay for the marketing program. … However, the order clearly did not resolve all factual issues.

Wheeler v. Shelby Charter Township

265 Mich. App. 657 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 26, 2005

1963, art 9, § 31 provides in relevant part: Units of Local Government are hereby prohibited from levying any tax not authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified ... without the approval of a majority of the qualified … Defendants awarded the contract to Great Lakes because it met the qualified hauler criteria and submitted the lowest bid.

Ferrero v. Walton Township

295 Mich. App. 475 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 2012

Therefore, Const 1963, art 9, § 7, which is concerned only with income taxes, is inapplicable to what is clearly a property tax rebate.” … final opinion bases its ruling solely on its conclusion that “when adding Petitioner’s 2008 property tax credit to Petitioner’s 2009 Social Security income, Petitioner’s annual household income exceeds the $10,400 threshold established

People v. Lawton

196 Mich. App. 341 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1992

Moreover, contrary to defendant’s apparent suggestion, defendant lacks power to immunize witnesses. He cannot compel a grant of immunity. … Indeed, the jury was clearly charged regarding the defendant’s right not to testify.