§

In re Cornet

422 Mich. 274 (Mich. 1985)
In re Cornet

52 Citing cases

  1. In re Brown

    No. 342035 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2018)

    Clear error occurs when, although there is evidence supporting the trial court's decision, the reviewing court "is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." In re Cornet, 422 Mich 274, 278; 373 NW2d 536 (1985) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The trial court's decision must be more than maybe or probably wrong.

  2. In re Sours v. Sours

    459 Mich. 624 (Mich. 1999)   Cited 246 times
    Finding that the respondent's history of assaultive acts and failure to attend domestic violence counseling supported a finding of a reasonable likelihood that the children could be injured if they were returned to the respondent's home

    Probate court decisions terminating parental rights are reviewed for clear error. In re Cornet, 422 Mich. 274, 277-278; 373 N.W.2d 536 (1985). "`To be clearly erroneous, a decision must strike us as more than just maybe or probably wrong. . . .'"

  3. In re Martin

    450 Mich. 204 (Mich. 1995)   Cited 150 times
    Recognizing that Michigan's patient advocate act, M.C.L. § 700.496, incorporates a "clear and convincing evidence" standard for determining whether a patient would allow treatment to be withheld if such would lead to his death

    It ignores the admonition that in cases like this an appellate court "must also be cognizant of the profound responsibility which has been vested in the trial court and should not substitute its judgment for that of a trial court."In re Cornet, 422 Mich. 274, 277-278; 373 N.W.2d 536 (1985).In re Fiori, 438 Pa. Super. 610, 637; 652 A.2d 1350 (1995).

  4. In re Brock

    442 Mich. 101 (Mich. 1993)   Cited 256 times
    Upholding presentation of child's testimony against parents by videotaped deposition

    Ante, p 115.In re Cornet, 422 Mich. 274; 373 N.W.2d 536 (1985), adopting the clearly erroneous standard of appellate review for parental rights termination proceedings. See also In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331, 337; 445 N.W.2d 161 (1989), reiterating that an appellate court should not reverse the findings of a trial court unless the findings are clearly erroneous.

  5. In re Miller

    433 Mich. 331 (Mich. 1989)   Cited 672 times
    Explaining that the clearly erroneous standard for findings of fact must provide deference to the trial court and its "special opportunity . . . to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it"

    "A finding is `clearly erroneous' [if] although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." In re Riffe, 147 Mich. App. 658, 671; 382 N.W.2d 842 (1985); In re Cornet, 422 Mich. 274, 278; 373 N.W.2d 536 (1985). For termination of parental rights cases, this standard of review is codified in the Michigan Court Rules. MCR 5.974(I).

  6. Schwartz v. City of Flint

    426 Mich. 295 (Mich. 1986)   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Schwartz, the Court abruptly disavowed Zaagman, citing the need to free the zoning process from judicial intrusion and the practical unworkability of the Zaagman procedure.

    See MCR 2.613(C); In re Cornet, 422 Mich. 274; 373 N.W.2d 536 (1985).Tuttle v Dep't of State Highways, 397 Mich. 44, 46; 243 N.W.2d 244 (1976).

  7. In re Reveles

    No. 357576 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2022)

    Clear error occurs when, although there is evidence supporting the trial court's decision, the reviewing court "is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." In re Cornet, 422 Mich. 274, 278; 373 N.W.2d 536 (1985) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The trial court's decision must be more than maybe or probably wrong.

  8. Johnston v. Jazdzyk

    No. 341527 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2018)

    Clear error exists when, although there is evidence supporting the trial court's decision, the reviewing court "is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." In re Cornet, 422 Mich 274, 278; 373 NW2d 536 (1985) (quotation marks and citation omitted). B. EXPRESS EASEMENT

  9. In re RFF

    242 Mich. App. 188 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 42 times

    This Court reviews the trial court's findings of fact for clear error. In re Cornet, 422 Mich. 274, 277; 373 N.W.2d 536 (1985); Lang, supra at 139. After hearing testimony on this issue, the trial court made findings on the relevant factors set forth in MCL 710.22(f); MSA 27.3178(555.22)(f).

  10. In re Martin

    205 Mich. App. 96 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 4 times

    A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. In re Cornet, 422 Mich. 274, 277-278; 373 N.W.2d 536 (1985). Here, several medical experts testified at the proceedings on remand concerning Michael's cognitive abilities.