Case law

People v. Tomasovich

249 Mich. App. 282 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2002

The Supreme Court explained the primary rule for statutory interpretation in Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 236 ; 596 NW2d 11 (1999): The rules of statutory construction are well established. … If the language of the statute in unambiguous, the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written. No further judicial construction is required or permitted.

System Soft Technologies, LLC v. Artemis Technologies, Inc.

301 Mich. App. 642 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2013

Plaintiff thus has established that mandamus is the proper method of raising his legal challenge to Duggan’s candidacy. … The qualified voter file shall be used to determine the genuineness of a signature on a petition. Signature comparisons shall be made with the digitized signatures in the qualified voter file.

People v. Livingston

64 Mich. App. 247 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 1975

In an attempt to establish "authorization”, the government informed certain co-conspirators of the tapes, discontinued the prosecution of one co-conspirator, paid salaries to other co-conspirators and generally treated the … Morgan’s consent was not voluntary is clearly erroneous. The order granting defendants’ motion to suppress is reversed and the cause remanded for trial.

Hill v. City of Warren

276 Mich. App. 299 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2007

Rather, our Supreme Court held that the circuit court’s “denial of class certification was not clearly erroneous.” … The trespass-nuisance exception to governmental immunity remains available in this matter. The names of the parties are not relevant.

People of Michigan v. Tmando Allen Denson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 2015

But I’m not aware of any plan to charge you and there’s no immunity here . . . there’s no connection.” … Woodward also denied that anyone had told him he would receive immunity in exchange for testifying against defendant.

AFSCME Local 25 v. Wayne County

297 Mich. App. 489 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2012

plaintiff, Michigan AFSCME Council 25, on its claim that defendants unlawfully imposed a wage reduction for county employees, and denying defendants’ motion for reconsideration regarding the applicability of governmental immunity … Summary disposition under subrule (C)(8) is appropriate when a claim “is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify recovery.” Id.

Fuller Central Park Properties v. City of Birmingham

97 Mich. App. 517 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 19, 1980

Defendants counter-claimed in each action for a declaratory judgment determining that the city commission had no obligation to approve the maximum number of licenses authorized by law, even though qualified applicants were … (Emphasis added.)_ *526 This section clearly indicates that there are some exceptions to the control of the MLCC, those specified in the statute.

Jennifer Buhl v. City of Oak Park

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2019

“Statutes are presumed to apply prospectively only unless a contrary intent is clearly manifested.” Brewer v A D Transp Express, Inc, 486 Mich 50, 56; 782 NW2d 475 (2010). … Accordingly, “establishing whether a duty exists in light of the open and obvious nature of a hazard is an issue within the province of the court.” Hoffner, 492 Mich at 476.

Landin v. Healthsource Saginaw, Inc.

305 Mich. App. 519 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2014

The immunity from civil or criminal liability granted under this subsection extends only to acts done pursuant to this article. … As clearly held in Morris , the issue was one of fact for the jury to decide.

Birgetta Walker v. City of Romulus

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2020

Plaintiff further alleged that this “tripping hazard” qualified as a “hazard to travel” and a “defective condition” that fell within an exception to governmental immunity. … At the close of the parties’ arguments, the trial court stated its conclusions that plaintiff had properly pleaded her complaint in avoidance of governmental immunity, the alleged defect qualified as an exception to governmental

Teri Walters v. Donald S Falik

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2015

We observe that plaintiffs, in order to succeed, are not required to definitively establish a causal link between the exposure and WG.7 Moreover, the inquiry regarding whether proposed scientific 7 “To establish a prima … Although clearly not universally accepted, and although unsupported by epidemiological studies that may or may not be flawed, . . .

People v. Collins

43 Mich. App. 259 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 1972

The trial court found that there was no strong community feeling or a pattern of deep and bitter prejudice against defendant and the record does not establish that this finding was clearly erroneous, GCR 1963, 517.1. 5. … Defendant does not claim that Howard Schlesinger was not a qualified expert witness, that his analysis procedure was improper, that the equipment used was defective or was used improperly.

People v. Lonsby

268 Mich. App. 375 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2005

Here, Jackson’s writings clearly qualify as statements that Jackson would reasonably expect would be used in a prosecutorial manner and at trial. Id. at 51 . … That is, unlike the defendant in this case, the defendant in Carines failed to raise a specific objection that was clearly available to him.

People v. Unger

278 Mich. App. 210 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 2008

Dragovic was at times a cagey and evasive witness at the preliminary examination, his testimony was clearly based on reliable and established methods in the fields of neuropathology and forensic pathology. … Of note, although the evidence at trial clearly established that Linn Duncan found the blue blanket on the concrete pavement at the time he discovered the victim’s body, defendant told at least one person in the days following

Booth Newspapers, Inc v. University of Michigan Board of Regents

192 Mich. App. 574 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 1992

The burden of establishing that a meeting is exempt from the oma is on defendant. Detroit News, p 301. The oma requires that all meetings of a public body be open to the public. MCL 15.263(1); MSA 4.1800(13)(1). … This is so because most communities hold only a limited number of individuals sufficiently qualified to be able to serve as a university or college president, particularly where the communities are relatively small and have

Dafter Township v. Reid

131 Mich. App. 283 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1983

The review shall be made by persons qualified in hydrogeology and sanitary landfill engineering. … A written approval by the persons qualified in hydrogeology and sanitary landfill engineering shall be received before a construction permit is issued.

Estate of Hana St Juliana v. State Police

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2025

“[I]f a plaintiff fails to comply with MCL 600.6431, his or her claims against a governmental agency are barred by governmental immunity.” … This discrepancy necessitates a thorough examination of how these statutes can coalesce within the confines of established legislative purpose.

People of Michigan v. Ethan Tin Cao

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2025

because the record establishes the practice of “scrolling,” we need not address whether other forms of pressure or expectation to drink to excess that are not as clearly and specifically imposed as “scrolling” might also … qualify as “hazing.”

Guardianship & Alternatives, Inc. v. Jones (In re Horton)

325 Mich. App. 325 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2018

GAI maintained that decedent's electronic "farewell" note qualified as decedent's will. … In what is clearly a final note to be read upon decedent's death, the document then clearly dictates the distribution of his property after his death. Cf.

McBride v. Americana Mobile Home Park, Inc.

173 Mich. App. 275 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 1988

decision affirmed a decision of a commission referee who concluded that respondent’s request for a redetermination was filed beyond the appropriate appeal period and good cause for reconsideration or redetermination was not established … Had respondent received its copy of the determi *282 nation, that form would have clearly spelled out the applicable appeal procedure and the time limitations involved.