Case law

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.

Polania v. State Employees' Retirement System

299 Mich. App. 322 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2013

These provisions provide for the review of agency decisions; they do not limit the Legislature’s authority to establish eligibility criteria nor do they give agencies the authority to ignore those criteria. … It then should have reviewed the record to determine whether the Board’s finding that Polania had not established the certification required under MCL 38.24(l)(b) was supported by competent, material and substantial evidence

People v. Bragg

296 Mich. App. 433 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 8, 2012

Um, clearly the mother’s testimony is what it is. But, I would submit that she clearly has a - - a motive to, um, assist her son and a mo - - motive to lie. And clearly, both of them can’t be correct. … The record clearly establishes that defendant’s communication to Vaprezsan falls within MCL 767.5a(2)’s scope. The communication was therefore privileged and confidential.

Drew v. Cass County

299 Mich. App. 495 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2013

Clearly anyone who occupies a home will have utilities which for a family of eight would exceed the amounts shown herein by the parties. … However, Petitioners faded to prove they established occupancy to qualify for the exemption.

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.

in Re Timothy Erik Schultz

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 2020

The Court concluded that § 4(a), which provides immunity from arrest and prosecution for lawful medical marijuana activities, did not interfere with the enforcement or purposes of the CSA. Id. at 13-19. … Regardless of whether a state’s post-felony restoration of rights satisfies the exception provided by 18 USC 921(a)(20), Congress clearly contemplated that states have that authority, notwithstanding the federal liability

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.

Lexington Townhouses Coop. v. CITY OF WARREN TOWNHOUSE MANOR COOP.

32 Mich. App. 523 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 1971

The title of the act reads as follows: “An act to create a state housing development authority; to define the powers and duties of the authority; to establish a housing development revolving fund; to authorize loans to qualified … Holding that the statute grants no legislative discretion in the municipal governing bodies but only a ministerial duty of fact finding within clearly stated limits, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent

Parks v. Johnson

84 Mich. App. 162 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1978

courts to keep the doctrine of absolute privilege within these narrow limits. * * * "`Generally speaking, absolute privilege is confined to cases in which the public service or the administration of justice requires complete immunity … In this connection, I would note that the expression made by defendant was one of opinion clearly within the scope of her employment; the fact that her statement was intemperate and unprofessional, although perhaps reflecting

City of Wayne v. Anthony Wayne Miller

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2024

A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may be granted only where the claims alleged are so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery. … to treat patients qualified as such a privilege.

Ewers v. Stroh Brewery Co.

178 Mich. App. 371 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 1989

Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that defendant’s "economic necessity” defense is false and that immunizing the question whether it was economically necessary to reduce the number of employees contradicts the rationale … We do not retain jurisdiction. 1 The testimony of a number of Stroh’s employees established the "just-cause” requirement.

Decker v. Rochowiak

287 Mich. App. 666 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2010

That reliance is misplaced because the facts in Gulley-Reaves are clearly distinguishable. … The standard of care required of a nurse must be established by expert testimony. Wiley, 257 Mich App at 492 .

Eric Jones v. City of Walled Lake

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 2021

Thus, “[t]o qualify for absolute immunity from tort liability[,] an individual governmental employee must prove his or her entitlement to immunity by establishing, consistently with the statute’s plain language, (1) that … The trial court adopted plaintiffs’ arguments as to why Whitt did not qualify for absolute immunity.

Barry v. Flint Fire Department

44 Mich. App. 602 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 1973

Therefore, although qualified in all other respects, the Flint Civil Service Commission denied him an opportunity to write the examination. … On the record before us, we cannot say that the evidence clearly indicates that the circuit court should have reached a different result.

Major v. Village of Newberry

316 Mich. App. 527 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2016

*541 (3) she was qualified for the position, and (4) she was replaced by a younger person.” … Plaintiff, as a woman, was clearly a member of a protected class.

D’alessandro Contracting Group, LLC v. Wright

308 Mich. App. 71 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2014

If they were, this work product is “cloaked with a qualified immunity without regard to whether [it was] prepared by an attorney or by some other person and whether such other person was engaged by an attorney.” … This rule clearly identifies material subject to the work-product privilege. Pertinent here is the rule’s provision that work product prepared either “by or for . . . another party’s representative” qualifies.

Barbara a Kozak v. City of Lincoln Park

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 2015

Defendant enjoys the governmental immunity established by the statute because municipal corporations qualify as governmental agencies. Weaver v Detroit, 252 Mich App 239, 243; 651 NW2d 482 (2002). … A hole of that size clearly presents a danger to bicyclists, and it is a matter of common sense that it -8-  Plaintiffs submitted photographs that clearly

Lawrence v. Burdi

314 Mich. App. 203 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 2016

This Court reviews . . . a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) to determine whether the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify … A finding is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the record, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.

Mills Siding and Roofing LLC v. Margie Rosario

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2026

“A trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous only where we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). … In a divided opinion, this Court held that the transaction qualified as a home solicitation sale under the HSSA. Id. at 391-392.

People v. Seals

285 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2009

Clearly the statutory period of limitations in which to charge defendant with either larceny or second-degree home invasion had expired at the time charges were brought. … Illinois courts have reached the same conclusion, noting that “proof that the underlying felony occurred is not used to establish that felony per se; rather, it is used to establish the requisite substitute criminal intent