Case law

Estate of Omarion Humphrey v. Alternatives for Children & Families

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2026

The trial court held that the DHHS defendants were entitled to summary disposition on the basis of qualified immunity. … Addressing the CAS defendants, the trial court denied their dispositive motion premised on qualified immunity.

Parpart v. City of Detroit

194 Mich. App. 561 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1992

Plaintiff appeals as of right a Wayne Circuit Court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants Hinton, McDonald, and Morgan pursuant to its finding that plaintiff had failed to establish a factual issue regarding … Therefore, case dismissed on governmental immunity. This was clearly erroneous.

Killingsworth v. Police & Fire Department Civil Service Commission

12 Mich. App. 340 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 1968

Stated generally, the purpose of the statute is to aid the public by establishing better qualified personnel in the police and fire departments and to protect its officers and employees from arbitrary and unjustifiable removal … Such an appointment is limited to a period of three months, and the statute clearly prohibits successive temporary appointments to the same position. There is a further provision in subsection (c).

People of Michigan v. Joel Martin Selman

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 2018

A defendant seeking to establish entitlement to Section 4 immunity as a qualifying patient must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “at the time of the charged offense” he or she (1) possessed a valid registry … Thus, because 4 In Manuel, 319 Mich at 304-305, we held that the trial court did not clearly err in determining that the defendant in that case was entitled to immunity from prosecution under Section 4, even though police

Timothy L Johnson v. Public School Employees Retirement System

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2020

The trial court also disagreed that governmental immunity or sovereign immunity barred an interest award outside of interest on a money judgment under MCL 600.6455. … Importantly, in this case, plaintiffs clearly enjoyed an alternative remedy in that they were able to bring equitable claims. Not only were plaintiffs able to bring equitable claims, they also recovered on these claims.

Askwith v. City of Sault Ste Marie

191 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 1991

This is not to say that any interference with public safety is sufficient to establish a public nuisance. … Clearly, the public nuisance exception is not so broad. The limitations on the exception are clearly expressed in the Restatement: the interference must be unreasonable.

People of Michigan v. Joel Martin Selman

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 2018

A defendant seeking to establish entitlement to Section 4 immunity as a qualifying patient must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “at the time of the charged offense” he or she (1) possessed a valid registry … Thus, because 4 In Manuel, 319 Mich at 304-305, we held that the trial court did not clearly err in determining that the defendant in that case was entitled to immunity from prosecution under Section 4, even though police

Serenity Homes-North LLC v. Lynne Doyle

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2019

The trial court denied his motion finding that Brown was neither cloaked in absolute governmental immunity or qualified immunity. This appeal ensued. II. … Brown next argues that the trial court erroneously determined that he was not entitled to qualified governmental immunity. We disagree.

Sturgis Bank & Trust Co. v. Hillsdale Community Health Center

268 Mich. App. 484 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 2006

Where the wording or language of a statute is unambiguous, the Legislature is deemed to have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and we must enforce the statute as written. Id. … Other portions of § 2169, such as subsections 4 (an expert shall not testify on a contingency fee basis) and 5 (discovery limitations in attempting to surmise whether an expert is qualified), are clearly not applicable in

Department of Treasury v. Psychological Resources, Inc

147 Mich. App. 140 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 1985

Had the court here ordered Johnson to examine the records and report to the commissioner or duly appointed agents, the statute’s express intent clearly would have been violated. … Affirmed. 1 Note that only persons who are subpoenaed may be immune from prosecution under the statute. People v Parsons, 142 Mich App 751; 371 NW2d 440 (1985).

Minor Doe v. Trinity Health-Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2025

Mother selected Hospital to provide PHP services, but communicated to Hospital staff that she wanted Doe to continue with the medication management program that had been established by Doe’s previous providers. … The CPL provides that any person that qualifies as a mandatory reporter “who has reasonable cause to suspect child abuse or child neglect shall make an immediate report” of the suspected abuse. MCL 722.623(1)(a).

Kowalesky v. Kowalesky

148 Mich. App. 151 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 1986

determine any question arising in the administration or distribution of any *160 trust including questions of construction of trust instruments, to instruct trustees, and to determine the existence or nonexistence of any immunity … We believe the trial court’s solution is adequate until such time as one party can establish the whereabouts of the silver.

Hough v. North Star Baptist Church

109 Mich. App. 780 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 1981

This is clearly a secular purpose. The Legislature has determined that schools present a unique situation requiring higher standards of fire prevention and safety than buildings used for open meetings. … Furthermore, the fire inspector was not qualified as an expert witness in "safety”.

Starmania Hitson v. City of Eastpointe

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2018

The court alternatively found that the evidence established that Officers Murdock and Arthurs were entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity applies unless the official’s conduct was in violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Lavigne v Forshee, 307 Mich App 530, 542; 861 NW2d 635 (2014).

Baldwin v. North Shore Estates Ass'n

15 Mich. App. 289 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 24, 1968

To be “qualified” to vote, a property owner must have been: (1) a “qualified” voter of the State of Michigan, and (2) a weekend resident of the area for 1 month preceding the election. … Clearly, the intention of the statute is to insure the execution of a petition by ten people [or more] having an actual personal interest in * the road.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Nekeyia Williams v. Christine Antoinette Kelly

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 2026

The trial court granted the motion, reasoning that Williams could not establish that Kelly was grossly negligent, and, as such, Williams could not establish the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity. … Further, Williams pleaded facts that, if proven, would establish that Kelly was negligent, as required to impose tort liability on the City under MCL 691.1405.

Ass'n of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity v. Mich. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, Consumers Energy Co. (In Re For)

325 Mich. App. 207 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 2018

MCL 460.6w(3) directs the MPSC to establish a capacity charge that a provider must pay if it fails to satisfy the capacity obligations established under section 6w(8). … [T]he statute gives the Commission flexibility to determine how best to establish a forward locational requirement and the resources that qualify to meet that requirement.

Dawson v. Secretary of State

274 Mich. App. 723 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 2007

We conclude that the Court of Claims did not clearly err in finding that the fees were not ‘wholly disproportionate.’ ” Id. at 615 (citation omitted). … It will be presumed that the amount of the fee is reasonable, unless the contrary appears upon the face of the law itself, or is established by proper evidence.” (Citing cases.)

People v. Hampton

184 Mich. App. 434 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1990

Clearly, in order to answer the specific question presented, the Supreme Court first had to resolve the broader issue of legislative intent. … We qualify our disagreement with Bettistea by emphasizing our understanding of Stoudemire that the felon’s opportunity to reform begins immediately upon *441 conviction, not sentencing.

Melissa Mays v. Governor Rick Snyder

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2018

It is true that a plaintiff who has not suffered an injury “cannot maintain the cause of action as an individual is not qualified to represent [a] proposed class.” … Here, unlike in Rusha, application of the harsh and unreasonable consequences exception is clearly supported.