has explained factors in Michigan

2023This Court has explained the principle underlying MCR 2.201(B)(1) as follows: “A real party in interest is one who is vested with the right of action on a given claim, although the beneficial interest may be in another.” Hofmann v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 211 Mich App 55, 95 ; 535 NW2d 529 (1995).

2023This Court has explained the principle underlying MCR 2.201(B)(1) as follows: “A real party in interest is one who is vested with the right of action on a given claim, although the beneficial interest may be in another.” Hofmann v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 211 Mich App 55, 95 ; 535 NW2d 529 (1995).

2022People v Jackson, 203 Mich App 607, 614 ; 513 NW2d 206 (1994).

2022People v Jackson, 203 Mich App 607, 614 ; 513 NW2d 206 (1994).

2020That is, is it reasonable to expect that the invitee would discover the danger? [Novotney v Burger King Corp, 198 Mich App 470, 474-475 ; 499 NW2d 379 (1993) (emphasis added).] Additionally, this Court has explained this test is an objective one and that we thus “look[] not to whether plaintiff should have known that the [condition] was hazardous, but to whether a reasonable person in [her] position would foresee the danger.” Joyce v Rubin, 249 Mich App 231, 238-239 ; 642 NW2d 360 (2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted; second alteration in original).

2020That is, is it reasonable to expect that the invitee would discover the danger? [Novotney v Burger King Corp, 198 Mich App 470, 474-475 ; 499 NW2d 379 (1993) (emphasis added).] Additionally, this Court has explained this test is an objective one and that we thus “look[] not to whether plaintiff should have known that the [condition] was hazardous, but to whether a reasonable person in [her] position would foresee the danger.” Joyce v Rubin, 249 Mich App 231, 238-239 ; 642 NW2d 360 (2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted; second alteration in original).

2020That is, is it reasonable to expect that the invitee would discover the danger? [Novotney v Burger King Corp, 198 Mich App 470, 474-475 ; 499 NW2d 379 (1993) (emphasis added).] Additionally, this Court has explained this test is an objective one and that we thus “look[] not to whether plaintiff should have known that the [condition] was hazardous, but to whether a reasonable person in [her] position would foresee the danger.” Joyce v Rubin, 249 Mich App 231, 238-239 ; 642 NW2d 360 (2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted; second alteration in original).

2020That is, is it reasonable to expect that the invitee would discover the danger? [Novotney v Burger King Corp, 198 Mich App 470, 474-475 ; 499 NW2d 379 (1993) (emphasis added).] Additionally, this Court has explained this test is an objective one and that we thus “look[] not to whether plaintiff should have known that the [condition] was hazardous, but to whether a reasonable person in [her] position would foresee the danger.” Joyce v Rubin, 249 Mich App 231, 238-239 ; 642 NW2d 360 (2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted; second alteration in original).

2019A meritorious claim of abuse of process contemplates a situation where the defendant has availed himself of a proper legal procedure for a purpose collateral to the intended use of that procedure, e.g., where the defendant utilizes discovery in a manner consistent with the rules of procedure, but for the improper purpose of imposing an added burden and expense on the opposing party in an effort to conclude the litigation on favorable terms. [Dalley v Dykema Gossett, 287 Mich App 296, 322 ; 788 NW2d 679 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] More fully, this Court has explained a claim

2019A meritorious claim of abuse of process contemplates a situation where the defendant has availed himself of a proper legal procedure for a purpose collateral to the intended use of that procedure, e.g., where the defendant utilizes discovery in a manner consistent with the rules of procedure, but for the improper purpose of imposing an added burden and expense on the opposing party in an effort to conclude the litigation on favorable terms. [Dalley v Dykema Gossett, 287 Mich App 296, 322 ; 788 NW2d 679 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] More fully, this Court has explained a claim

2016This Court has explained the factors that may be considered when determining an appropriate spousal support award: (1) the past relations and conduct of the parties, (2) the length of the marriage, (3) the abilities of the parties to work, (4) the source and amount of property awarded to the parties, (5) the parties’ ages, (6) the abilities of the parties to pay alimony, (7) the present situation of the parties, (8) the needs of the parties, (9) the parties’ health, (10) the prior standard of living of the parties and whether either is responsible for the support of others, (11) contributions

2016This Court has explained the factors that may be considered when determining an appropriate spousal support award: (1) the past relations and conduct of the parties, (2) the length of the marriage, (3) the abilities of the parties to work, (4) the source and amount of property awarded to the parties, (5) the parties’ ages, (6) the abilities of the parties to pay alimony, (7) the present situation of the parties, (8) the needs of the parties, (9) the parties’ health, (10) the prior standard of living of the parties and whether either is responsible for the support of others, (11) contributions

2015The knowledge possessed by a corporation about a particular thing is the sum total of all the knowledge which its officers and agents, who are authorized and charged with the doing of the particular thing[,] [acquire] while acting under and within the scope of their authority. [New Properties, Inc v George D Newpower, Jr., Inc., 282 Mich App 120, 134 ; 762 NW2d 178 (2009) (quotation marks and footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).] Here, even assuming as the trial court did that Iovanna was an agent of Integon as opposed to an agent of the insured,1 Iovanna did not acquire any knowledge about La

2015The knowledge possessed by a corporation about a particular thing is the sum total of all the knowledge which its officers and agents, who are authorized and charged with the doing of the particular thing[,] [acquire] while acting under and within the scope of their authority. [New Properties, Inc v George D Newpower, Jr., Inc., 282 Mich App 120, 134 ; 762 NW2d 178 (2009) (quotation marks and footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).] Here, even assuming as the trial court did that Iovanna was an agent of Integon as opposed to an agent of the insured,1 Iovanna did not acquire any knowledge about La