strength defense in Michigan

2024In other words, if a party states a meritorious defense that would be absolute if proven, a lesser showing of “good cause” will be required than if the defense were weaker, in order to prevent a manifest injustice. [Alken-Ziegler, 461 Mich at 231-232 .] As discussed, in this case defendant has not stated a reason for its failure to respond to the complaint that alone would be considered to be sufficient good cause.

2018In other words, if a party states a meritorious defense that would be absolute if proven, a lesser showing of ‘good cause’ will be required . . . .” Alken- Ziegler, Inc v Waterbury Headers Corp, 461 Mich 219, 233-234 ; 600 NW2d 638 (1999).

2017Notably, “the accused’s motive in committing an alleged crime is always relevant because it bears on either his identity as the perpetrator of the offense or . . . the strength of his defense . . . .” People v Flynn, 93 Mich App 713, 722 ; 287 NW2d 329 (1979); see also People v Herndon, 246 Mich App 371, 412-413 ; 633 NW2d 376 (2001) (stating that motive can be helpful to show the necessary elements of a crime, even if motive is not an essential element itself).

2017Notably, “the accused’s motive in committing an alleged crime is always relevant because it bears on either his identity as the perpetrator of the offense or . . . the strength of his defense . . . .” People v Flynn, 93 Mich App 713, 722 ; 287 NW2d 329 (1979); see also People v Herndon, 246 Mich App 371, 412-413 ; 633 NW2d 376 (2001) (stating that motive can be helpful to show the necessary elements of a crime, even if motive is not an essential element itself).

2017“In cases in which the proofs are circumstantial, evidence of motive is particularly relevant.” People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 223 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008).

2017“In cases in which the proofs are circumstantial, evidence of motive is particularly relevant.” People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 223 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008).

2023In other words, if a party states a meritorious defense that would be absolute if proven, a lesser showing of “good cause” will be required than if the defense were weaker, in order to prevent a manifest injustice. [Id. at 233-234.] Additionally, this Court in Shawl v Spence Bros, Inc, 280 Mich App 213, 238 ; 760 NW2d 674 (2008), set forth several factors that a trial court should consider in determining whether a party has shown good cause to set aside a default: (1) whether the party completely failed to respond or simply missed the deadline to file; (2) if the party simply missed the deadli

2023In other words, if a party states a meritorious defense that would be absolute if proven, a lesser showing of “good cause” will be required than if the defense were weaker, in order to prevent a manifest injustice. [Id. at 233-234.] Additionally, this Court in Shawl v Spence Bros, Inc, 280 Mich App 213, 238 ; 760 NW2d 674 (2008), set forth several factors that a trial court should consider in determining whether a party has shown good cause to set aside a default: (1) whether the party completely failed to respond or simply missed the deadline to file; (2) if the party simply missed the deadli

1976Given the strength of the presumption of legitimacy, there will be little effect on the basic rule that parents will not be able to bastardize a child solely by their testimony, King v Peninsular Portland Cement Co, 216 Mich 335 ; 185 NW 858 (1921).

1976Given the strength of the presumption of legitimacy, there will be little effect on the basic rule that parents will not be able to bastardize a child solely by their testimony, King v Peninsular Portland Cement Co, 216 Mich 335 ; 185 NW 858 (1921).

1896In this view, it seems to me obvious that the strength of the presumption, the force of the inference from such evidence, must depend much upon the situation of the parties, the nature of the property, and the surrounding circumstances, in each particular case.” See, also, Cook v. Clinton, 64 Mich. 309 ( 8 Am.