explained doctrine in Michigan

2023The court should evaluate other options before concluding that a drastic sanction [like default] is warranted. [Traxler, 227 Mich App at 286 .] Thus, before ordering a default, trial courts should consider the timespan over which a party fails to respond to discovery requests, whether the party violated existing discovery orders, the time between the violation and the filing of the request for a default, whether there is any prejudice to the party requesting default, whether there has been a showing of willfulness, and whether lesser sanctions may address the court’s concerns.

2023The court should evaluate other options before concluding that a drastic sanction [like default] is warranted. [Traxler, 227 Mich App at 286 .] Thus, before ordering a default, trial courts should consider the timespan over which a party fails to respond to discovery requests, whether the party violated existing discovery orders, the time between the violation and the filing of the request for a default, whether there is any prejudice to the party requesting default, whether there has been a showing of willfulness, and whether lesser sanctions may address the court’s concerns.

2018The Court explained this standard in Tarlea v Crabtree, 263 Mich App 80, 90 ; 687 NW2d 333 (2004): Simply alleging that an actor could have done more is insufficient under Michigan law, because, with the benefit of hindsight, a claim can always be made that extra precautions could have influenced the result.

2018The Court explained this standard in Tarlea v Crabtree, 263 Mich App 80, 90 ; 687 NW2d 333 (2004): Simply alleging that an actor could have done more is insufficient under Michigan law, because, with the benefit of hindsight, a claim can always be made that extra precautions could have influenced the result.

2010Id. at 448 . [Id. at 424.] “However, the mere certification of a plat does not constitute acceptance of all the dedicated property.” Marx v Dep’t of Commerce, 220 Mich App 66, 74 ; 558 NW2d 460 (1996).

1996Id. at 448 .

2025MRE 901(a) states: “The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”3 In Mitchell, 321 Mich App at 154 , this Court explained that a challenge to the authenticity of evidence involves a two-part inquiry: In Michigan, challenges to the authenticity of evidence involve two related, but distinct, questions.

2025Johnson v VanderKooi, 502 Mich 751, 761 ; 918 NW2d 785 (2018).

2025Johnson v VanderKooi, 502 Mich 751, 761 ; 918 NW2d 785 (2018).

2025In France, 436 Mich at 163 n 34, the Court explained that the presumption may be rebutted by “a showing that the instruction was merely a recitation of an instruction originally given without objection, and that it was placed on the record.” In this case, the trial court had already instructed the jury that it was required to reach a unanimous verdict, and defendant had not objected to that instruction.

2025In People v Plummer, 229 Mich App 293 , 304 n 2; 581 NW2d 753 (1998), this Court explained that the doctrine of transferred intent permits culpability for murder where the defendant intended to shoot someone other than the victim.

2025In People v Plummer, 229 Mich App 293 , 304 n 2; 581 NW2d 753 (1998), this Court explained that the doctrine of transferred intent permits culpability for murder where the defendant intended to shoot someone other than the victim.

2024The Court explained that this exception was first announced by the Supreme Court in a plurality opinion in Priesman v Meridian Mut Ins Co, 441 Mich 60, 64 ; 490 NW2d 314 (1992) (opinion by LEVIN, J.), overruled in part by Spectrum Health, 492 Mich 503 , and later adopted by the Court of 6 In the case before the Spectrum Health Court, the plaintiff had been given permission to use a car by an intermediate user, but it was undisputed that the plaintiff knew that the owner had expressly prohibited the plaintiff from using the vehicle.

2024The Court explained that this exception was first announced by the Supreme Court in a plurality opinion in Priesman v Meridian Mut Ins Co, 441 Mich 60, 64 ; 490 NW2d 314 (1992) (opinion by LEVIN, J.), overruled in part by Spectrum Health, 492 Mich 503 , and later adopted by the Court of 6 In the case before the Spectrum Health Court, the plaintiff had been given permission to use a car by an intermediate user, but it was undisputed that the plaintiff knew that the owner had expressly prohibited the plaintiff from using the vehicle.

2024We acknowledge that in Thompson v Thompson, 261 Mich App 353, 358, 361 ; 683 NW2d 250 (2004), this Court concluded that the trial court was not required to make the threshold determination of a proper cause or a change of circumstances when the parties had entered into a stipulated order for temporary physical custody in favor of the plaintiff-father before trial on issues of custody.

2024Patterson v Kleiman, 447 Mich 429 , 434 n 6; 526 NW2d 879 (1994).

2024Patterson v Kleiman, 447 Mich 429 , 434 n 6; 526 NW2d 879 (1994).

2024The guardianship order specifically stated that “[t]he guardian may not remove the domicile or residence of the ward from the State of Michigan without prior order of this court.” In People v LaPorte, 103 Mich App 444 ; 303 NW2d 222 (1981), this Court explained the defense of consent as follows: Consent, if not obtained by fraud nor extorted by duress or by threats, is a complete defense to kidnapping.

2024The guardianship order specifically stated that “[t]he guardian may not remove the domicile or residence of the ward from the State of Michigan without prior order of this court.” In People v LaPorte, 103 Mich App 444 ; 303 NW2d 222 (1981), this Court explained the defense of consent as follows: Consent, if not obtained by fraud nor extorted by duress or by threats, is a complete defense to kidnapping.

2024The Court explained that this exception was first announced by the Supreme Court in a plurality opinion in Priesman v Meridian Mut Ins Co, 441 Mich 60, 64 ; 490 NW2d 314 (1992) (opinion by LEVIN, J.), overruled in part by Spectrum Health, 492 Mich 503 , and later adopted by the Court of 6 In the case before the Spectrum Health Court, the plaintiff had been given permission to use a car by an intermediate user, but it was undisputed that the plaintiff knew that the owner had expressly prohibited the plaintiff from using the vehicle.

2024Id. at 524 .

2024In Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 508 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003), this Court explained that the requirement that the party seeking to modify custody first demonstrate proper cause or change of circumstances arises from the Child Custody Act, and reflects the intent of our Legislature that, until a party meets that initial statutory burden, the trial court simply does not have the authority to revisit an otherwise valid custody decision or engage in a reconsideration of the statutory best-interest factors.

2024In Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 508 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003), this Court explained that the requirement that the party seeking to modify custody first demonstrate proper cause or change of circumstances arises from the Child Custody Act, and reflects the intent of our Legislature that, until a party meets that initial statutory burden, the trial court simply does not have the authority to revisit an otherwise valid custody decision or engage in a reconsideration of the statutory best-interest factors.

2024In Eschenbacher v Hier, 363 Mich 676 ; 110 NW2d 731 (1961), which our Supreme Court decided eight years after Kroll, the Court explained the rule pertaining to medical malpractice cases: In malpractice actions against doctors, the law is, and has been at least since the Groendal case [Groendal v Westrate, 171 Mich 92 ; 137 NW 87 (1912)], that a higher standard is applied in determining whether a doctor fraudulently concealed a cause of action from a patient than is applied where fraudulent concealment is alleged in cases between two corporations or two businessmen dealing at arm’s length.

2024In Eschenbacher v Hier, 363 Mich 676 ; 110 NW2d 731 (1961), which our Supreme Court decided eight years after Kroll, the Court explained the rule pertaining to medical malpractice cases: In malpractice actions against doctors, the law is, and has been at least since the Groendal case [Groendal v Westrate, 171 Mich 92 ; 137 NW 87 (1912)], that a higher standard is applied in determining whether a doctor fraudulently concealed a cause of action from a patient than is applied where fraudulent concealment is alleged in cases between two corporations or two businessmen dealing at arm’s length.

2023Defense counsel testified at the Ginther hearing that she “did a pretty good job presenting consent without saying the word consent.” While the trial court found defense counsel’s maneuverings at trial reflected a misunderstanding of the law, defense counsel “argue[d] the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising from it as they relate to his or her theory of the case[.]” People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 66 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007).

2023Defense counsel testified at the Ginther hearing that she “did a pretty good job presenting consent without saying the word consent.” While the trial court found defense counsel’s maneuverings at trial reflected a misunderstanding of the law, defense counsel “argue[d] the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising from it as they relate to his or her theory of the case[.]” People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 66 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007).

2023In Lakeside Oakland Dev, LC v H & J Beef Co, 249 Mich App 517, 527 ; 644 NW2d 765 (2002), this Court explained the doctrine of equitable estoppel as follows: Equitable estoppel is not an independent cause of action, but instead a doctrine that may assist a party by precluding the opposing party from asserting or denying the existence of a particular fact.

2023In Lakeside Oakland Dev, LC v H & J Beef Co, 249 Mich App 517, 527 ; 644 NW2d 765 (2002), this Court explained the doctrine of equitable estoppel as follows: Equitable estoppel is not an independent cause of action, but instead a doctrine that may assist a party by precluding the opposing party from asserting or denying the existence of a particular fact.

2023In Major, 316 Mich App at 543-544 , this Court explained the factors that a court should consider in determining whether stray remarks are relevant and probative of age discrimination: (1) whether the alleged discriminatory remarks were made by the person who made the adverse employment decision or by an agent of the employer that was uninvolved in the challenged decision, (2) whether the alleged discriminatory remarks were isolated or part of a pattern of biased comments, (3) whether the alleged discriminatory remarks were made in close temporal proximity to the challenged employment decision

2023Equitable estoppel may arise where (1) a party, by representations, admissions, or silence intentionally or negligently induces another party to believe facts, (2) the other party justifiably relies and acts on that belief, and (3) the other party is prejudiced if the first party is allowed to deny the existence of those facts. [Citations omitted.] Plaintiff cites Gordon v St Paul Fire & Marine Ins Co, 197 Mich 226, 234 ; 163 NW 556 (1917), in which the Supreme Court held that an insurance company was equitably estopped from “asserting a forfeiture for a condition of the premises existing at t

2023In Trademark Prop of Mich, LLC v Fannie Mae, 308 Mich App 132, 136-137 ; 863 NW2d 344 (2014), this Court explained the doctrine of standing: The purpose of the standing doctrine is to assess whether a litigant’s interest in the issue is sufficient to ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy.

2023In Trademark Prop of Mich, LLC v Fannie Mae, 308 Mich App 132, 136-137 ; 863 NW2d 344 (2014), this Court explained the doctrine of standing: The purpose of the standing doctrine is to assess whether a litigant’s interest in the issue is sufficient to ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy.

2022The trial court denied declaratory relief because plaintiff failed to show that an actual controversy existed as required by MCR 2.605(A)(1) (“In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, a Michigan court of record may declare the rights and other legal relations of an interested party seeking a declaratory judgment, whether or not other relief is or could be sought or granted.”) This Court explained that rule in Int’l Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v Central Mich Univ Trustees, 295 Mich App 486, 495 ; 815 NW2d 132 (2012): MCR 2.605

2022Id. at 266-268 .

2021The trial court explained that defense counsel was credible because he “testified convincingly about his discussion with his client” and “he has an extraordinary amount of experience practicing criminal 1 Given that defendant is entitled to a new trial on this basis, I would not reach the remaining claims of instructional error raised by defendant. 2 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -1- law.” In contrast, the trial court explained, defendant was not credible because (1) she consulted with defense counsel about 10 times before trial, and it was “very difficult to believe” t

2021The trial court explained that defense counsel was credible because he “testified convincingly about his discussion with his client” and “he has an extraordinary amount of experience practicing criminal 1 Given that defendant is entitled to a new trial on this basis, I would not reach the remaining claims of instructional error raised by defendant. 2 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -1- law.” In contrast, the trial court explained, defendant was not credible because (1) she consulted with defense counsel about 10 times before trial, and it was “very difficult to believe” t

2021In Jim-Bob Inc v Mehling, 178 Mich App 71, 91 ; 443 NW2d 451 (1989), this Court explained the doctrine of election of remedies: The doctrine of election of remedies is merely a procedural rule which precludes a plaintiff to whom there are available two inconsistent remedies from pursuing both.

2021In Jim-Bob Inc v Mehling, 178 Mich App 71, 91 ; 443 NW2d 451 (1989), this Court explained the doctrine of election of remedies: The doctrine of election of remedies is merely a procedural rule which precludes a plaintiff to whom there are available two inconsistent remedies from pursuing both.

2021Id.

2019In Ray v Swager (On Remand), 321 Mich App 755 , 758: 909 NW2d 917 (2017) (Ray II), this Court explained the framework set forth in Ray v Swager, 501 Mich 52 ; 903 NW2d 366 (2017) (Ray I), for determining whether an individual’s conduct may be considered the cause of an injury for purposes of determining governmental immunity under MCL 691.1407(2)(c).

2019In Ray v Swager (On Remand), 321 Mich App 755 , 758: 909 NW2d 917 (2017) (Ray II), this Court explained the framework set forth in Ray v Swager, 501 Mich 52 ; 903 NW2d 366 (2017) (Ray I), for determining whether an individual’s conduct may be considered the cause of an injury for purposes of determining governmental immunity under MCL 691.1407(2)(c).

2017See People v Iannucci, 314 Mich App 542, 545 ; 887 NW2d 817 (2016) (“[F]ailure to brief the merits of an allegation of error constitutes an abandonment of the issue.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).5 Affirmed. /s/ Henry William Saad /s/ Deborah A. Servitto /s/ Michael F. Gadola 4 The court explained that if defense counsel could demonstrate that the amount should be even lower than $75,000, it would allow a restitution hearing to address the matter. 5 Even if we were to review this issue for plain error, Mary has not established that any error occurred. “[T]he court is entitled to rel

2017See People v Iannucci, 314 Mich App 542, 545 ; 887 NW2d 817 (2016) (“[F]ailure to brief the merits of an allegation of error constitutes an abandonment of the issue.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).5 Affirmed. /s/ Henry William Saad /s/ Deborah A. Servitto /s/ Michael F. Gadola 4 The court explained that if defense counsel could demonstrate that the amount should be even lower than $75,000, it would allow a restitution hearing to address the matter. 5 Even if we were to review this issue for plain error, Mary has not established that any error occurred. “[T]he court is entitled to rel