Case law

People v. Kang

209 Mich. App. 540 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1995

A trial court’s findings of fact may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. MCR 2.613(C). … In this case, the trial court erred in concluding that the record established that defendant posted the funds.

Mark Roger Eichorn v. Michael Marsh

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2014

A government employee has qualified immunity for intentional torts. MCL 691.1407(3); Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, 461, 472; 760 NW2d 217 (2008). … To be entitled to this immunity, “[a] governmental employee must raise governmental immunity as an affirmative defense and establish that (1) the employee’s challenged acts were undertaken during the course of employment

Guardian Photo, Inc v. Department of Treasury

243 Mich. App. 270 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 2001

Defendant averred that the SBTA provided that a corporation's tax base constituted its federal taxable income, from which the SBTA clearly did not provide for any casual transaction exclusion. … could establish the claim and justify recovery.

Jeffrey Minor v. City of Sylvan Lake

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2014

In that procedural posture and based on the quotation above, this Court clearly refused to address defendants’ probable cause-(C)(7)- immunity claim, finding that the question of probable cause did not concern immunity but … “Qualified immunity shields -4- government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established

Cheryl Massa v. City of Livonia

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2016

CLAIMS INVOLVING THE REMAINING INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS The trial court found that the individual officers were entitled to qualified governmental immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ tort and gross negligence claims. … Accordingly, the individual officers were entitled to qualified governmental immunity as to the gross negligence claim pursuant to MCL 691.1407(2) and summary disposition as to this claim was proper under MCR 2.116(C)(7).

Hall v. Department of State Highways

109 Mich. App. 592 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 1981

The evidence presented during trial discloses that the court’s factual finding on the nuisance issue was not clearly erroneous. … Expert testimony heard below established that, at the time the disputed guardrail was installed, the device’s design met all known safety requirements for highway barriers.

Century Cellunet of Southern Michigan Cellular Ltd. Partnership v. Summit Township

250 Mich. App. 543 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2002

In establishing terms for the completion, restoration, reconstruction, extension, or substitution of nonconforming uses different classes of nonconforming uses may be established in the ordinance with different requirements … We do not retain jurisdiction. 1 The record does not clearly indicate whether petitioner’s tower qualified as a nonconforming structure under township zoning ordinance § 5.7.2, particularly in light of the requirements for

People v. Gunnett

182 Mich. App. 61 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1990

Clearly defendants could not reasonably proceed to trial without the witnesses. … In Pearson , the Supreme Court, desirous of preventing numerous appeals, established preliminary procedures to resolve controversies under the previous res gestae statute.

People v. Hubbard

217 Mich. App. 459 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 1996

The record establishes a complete absence of African-Americans in defendant’s jury array. … Further, a court is obligated to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality *484 is clearly apparent. Thompson v Merritt, 192 Mich App 412, 424 ; 481 NW2d 735 (1991).

Thomas Welgosh v. City of Novi

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2015

To support a gross negligence claim in avoidance of governmental immunity, a plaintiff must establish four elements: “(1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, and (4) damages.” … Accordingly, plaintiffs cannot establish liability in avoidance of governmental immunity.1 III.

People v. Williams

288 Mich. App. 67 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2010

To qualify as an attempt, the act must clearly and directly be related to the crime the defendant is charged with attempting and not some other goal. [CJI2d 18.7.] … It was not established that defendant had any intention to harm the store’s clerk.

Xu v. Gay

257 Mich. App. 263 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2003

This definition is used in many other Michigan statutes that provide limited immunity to certain groups, but allow liability for gross negligence. … However, plaintiff offered no admissible evidence to establish this point. Maiden, supra at 123 .

Ernsting v. Ave Maria College

274 Mich. App. 506 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 2007

If the language of the statute is unambiguous, the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute *512 must be enforced as written. … B We next address whether the DOE, as a federal agency, qualifies as a law enforcement agency under the WPA.

New Hampshire Insurance Group v. Labombard

155 Mich. App. 369 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 1986

Landlords commonly provide fire insurance on leased property and consider the premium in establishing the rental rate. … A negligent tenant, who is in privity with the insured and who has relied on the landlord to provide fire insurance protection for the realty, should be immune from suit, just as a negligent landlord could not be sued by

Buckeye Marketers, Inc v. Finishing Services, Inc

213 Mich. App. 615 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 1995

The trial court had the opportunity to hear the witnesses and truly was uniquely qualified to assess their credibility and to weigh the validity of the various theories of the experts presented to it. … deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.

Township of Bear Creek v. Cannabis Regulatory Agency

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2026

It did, however, execute a limited waiver of any right it had under sovereign immunity to exclude the Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) or its agents from entering the retail location as permitted under the MRTMA. … “Summary disposition on the basis of subrule (C)(8) should be granted only when the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery.”

DeFLAVIIS v. LORD & TAYLOR, INC

223 Mich. App. 432 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 1997

Second, Title VII’s definition of “employee” likewise lacks any temporal qualifier and is consistent with either current or past employment. . . . … Having established that plaintiff, a former employee, is entitled to bring an action for unlawful retaliation under § 701 of the Civil Rights Act, we now find that plaintiff established a genuine issue of *441 material fact

Petrove v. GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD CO.

174 Mich. App. 705 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 1989

Chi because he was not qualified as an expert and since there was a lack of foundation for his opinions. *716 In determining the admissibility of opinion testimony of a witness, the question of whether the witness is qualified … A witness may be qualified as an expert if he or she has acquired specialized knowledge through experience, training or education. MRE 702. In this case, the record establishes that Dr.

People v. Lytal

96 Mich. App. 140 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 1980

However, the situation in the instant case is clearly distinguishable from those presented in the forego *159 ing cases. … However, the purpose of eliciting testimony regarding the witness’s guilty plea here was not to establish defendant’s guilt, but rather to establish that the witness was not testifying to obtain a 'break’ from the prosecutor

People v. James

87 Mich. App. 412 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1978

While it was not error for the court to accept the testimony of a psychologist with respect to defendant’s competency to stand trial, the clinic clearly erred in failing to submit a written report to the circuit court. … Evidence substantiating incompetency-in-fact must establish that there is a violation of rights before a new trial will be ordered.