Armstrong v. Ypsilanti Charter Township

126 Citing cases

  1. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Betts

    No. 342040 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 18, 2018)

    We disagree. The issue of judicial disqualification is reviewed de novo as a question of law. Kloian v Schwartz, 272 Mich App 232, 244; 725 NW2d 671 (2006); Armstrong v Ypsilanti Charter Twp, 248 Mich App 573, 596; 640 NW2d 321 (2001). MCR 2.003(C)(1) provides, in relevant part, that disqualification of a judge is warranted when:

  2. Kalynovych v. Kalynovych

    No. 338758 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2018)

    "When this Court reviews a motion to disqualify a judge, the trial court's findings of fact are reviewed for an abuse of discretion; however, the applicability of the facts to relevant law is reviewed de novo." Armstrong v Ypsilanti Charter Twp, 248 Mich App 573, 596; 640 NW2d 321 (2001). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes."

  3. Melki v. Clayton Charter Twp.

    No. 306135 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 18, 2013)

    "A judge, a legislator, and the elective or highest appointive executive official of all levels of government are immune from tort liability for injuries to persons or damages to property if he or she is acting within the scope of his or her judicial, legislative, or executive authority."Armstrong v Ypsilanti Charter Twp, 248 Mich App 573, 594; 640 NW2d 321 (2001). MCL 691.1407(5).

  4. Melki v. Clayton Charter Twp.

    No. 306135 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    "A judge, a legislator, and the elective or highest appointive executive official of all levels of government are immune from tort liability for injuries to persons or damages to property if he or she is acting within the scope of his or her judicial, legislative, or executive authority."Armstrong v Ypsilanti Charter Twp, 248 Mich App 573, 594; 640 NW2d 321 (2001). MCL 691.1407(5).

  5. People v. Wade

    283 Mich. App. 462 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 85 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the verdict form was defective, requiring reversal, because it did not give the jury the opportunity to return a general verdict of not guilty. We note that the verdict form would not have been defective if it had included a box through which the jury could have found defendant not guilty of second-degree murder and not guilty of involuntary manslaughter."

    This Court reviews a trial court's factual findings on a motion for disqualification for an abuse of discretion, but the application of the law to the facts is reviewed de novo. Armstrong v. Ypsilanti Charter Twp., 248 Mich.App. 573, 596, 640 N.W.2d 321 (2001).          On January 26, 2007, defense counsel engaged in an after-court conversation with the trial judge.

  6. Nierzwick v. Nierzwick (In re Estate of Nierzwick)

    No. 349604 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    "When this Court reviews a motion to disqualify a judge, the trial court's findings of fact are reviewed for an abuse of discretion; however, the applicability of the facts to relevant law is reviewed de novo." Armstrong v Ypsilanti Twp, 248 Mich App 573, 596; 640 NW2d 321 (2001). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes."

  7. Crews v. Crews

    No. 346440 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2019)

    "When this Court reviews a motion to disqualify a judge, the trial court's findings of fact are reviewed for an abuse of discretion; however, the applicability of the facts to relevant law is reviewed de novo." Armstrong v Ypsilanti Charter Twp, 248 Mich App 573, 596; 640 NW2d 321 (2001). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes."

  8. Kolley v. Adult Protective Serv.

    786 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (E.D. Mich. 2011)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that immunity applied to a GAL in guardianship proceedings involving a legally incapacitated adult

    And the Michigan Court of Appeals has concluded that the immunity provided by Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1407(5) does apply to intentional torts. Nicklas v. Koelling, Nos. 248870 & 248871, 2004 WL 2808904 at *1 (Mich.Ct.App.2004) (citing Armstrong v. Ypsilanti Charter Twp., 248 Mich.App. 573, 594, 640 N.W.2d 321, 333 (2001)). As to Plaintiffs' second argument—that Saltzman was not acting within the scope of her authority as guardian ad litem—the Court agrees with Saltzman that all of the acts alleged in the complaint were committed when she was acting within the scope of her authority as guardian ad litem.

  9. Palik v. Palik

    No. 361100 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 15, 2022)

    Armstrong v Ypsilanti Charter Twp, 248 Mich.App. 573, 597; 640 N.W.2d 321 (2001) (citations omitted).

  10. Cnty. of Livingston v. Bambas

    No. 352122 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2021)

    When reviewing a judicial-disqualification motion, this Court reviews the trial court's findings of fact for an abuse of discretion and reviews de novo the application of the facts to the law. Armstrong v Ypsilanti Charter Twp, 248 Mich App 573, 596; 640 NW2d 321 (2001). The court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of principled outcomes.