MICHIGAN'S EXPERT APPEAL LAWYERS-Call 7 Days-24 Hours: (517) 993-9555
Call 7 Days-24 Hours: (517) 993-9555
The Answer is yes, by filing a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict (JNOV). If a State of Michigan Circuit or District Court Jury rendered a verdict against you, our expert appeal lawyer can file a motion asking the judge to set aside the verdict. If the motion is denied, the next step would be to file an appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Michigan Court Rule-MCR 2.610. Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) outlines the process and requirements. A court on appeal reviews a trial court's decision with regard to a motion for JNOV de novo. In reviewing a decision regarding a motion for JNOV, the testimony and all legitimate inferences that may be drawn therefrom is viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. If reasonable jurors could have honestly reached different conclusions, the jury verdict must stand. In deciding a motion for a new trial, the trial court's function is to determine whether the overwhelming weight of the evidence favors the losing party. The court must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling with regard to a motion for a new trial. Substantial deference is given to the trial court's conclusion that the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence. Civil appeals are our specialty, call today to set up a free consultation.
In cases tried to a final order, a lot of preliminary work has to happen before you file a claim of appeal, and it has to start within a relatively short window—21 days—after the signing of the judgment or order. There are critical preliminary issues to consider before filing an appeal. They include the following:
MCR 2.603(D) controls setting aside defaults and default judgments. A party wishing to have a properly entered default or default judgment, or both, set aside must file a motion to do so. Specifically, MCR 2.603(D)(1) provides:
(D) Setting Aside Default or Default Judgment.
(1) A motion to set aside a default or a default judgment, except when grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the defendant, shall be granted only if good cause is shown and a statement of facts showing a meritorious defense, verified in the manner prescribed by MCR 1.109(D)(3), is filed. The party seeking relief has the burden of demonstrating that they have a meritorious defense and good cause for failing to plead or otherwise defend. A showing of a meritorious defense must be based on a statement of facts. The affidavit must be grounded on the affiant’s personal knowledge and must state with particularity facts admissible as evidence that establish the grounds set forth in the motion and show affirmatively that the affiant, if sworn as a witness, can testify competently to the facts in the affidavit. Further, courts have wide discretion to relieve a party from a judgment or order for any reason justifying relief from a judgment or order’s execution. Finally, Michigan courts generally prefer to adjudicate matters based on their merits. Call today to speak with a lawyer who specializes in civil appeals.
Meagher v Wayne State Univ, 222 Mich App 700 (1997),
Reviewing grant of directed verdict, appellate court considers decision de novo and must consider evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party and make all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Directed verdict is appropriate only where no factual question exists on which reasonable minds could differ.
Stoken v JET Elecs & Tech, Inc, 174 Mich App 457 (1988),
In deciding whether trial court erred in granting or denying directed verdict, appellate court reviews all evidence presented to determine whether question of fact existed. In doing so, appellate court views evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party, granting it every reasonable inference and resolving any conflict in evidence in nonmoving party’s favor.
Farrell v Automobile Club of Mich, 155 Mich App 378 (1986),
When reviewing trial court’s refusal to grant defendant’s motion for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding verdict, court of appeals examines evidence and all legitimate inferences that may be drawn from evidence in light most favorable to plaintiff. If evidence, viewed in this manner, would permit reasonable jury to reach different conclusions, motion should be denied by trial court since neither trial court nor court of appeals may substitute its judgment for that of jury. Here, evidence sufficiently established that reasonable minds could have reached different conclusions regarding whether plaintiff’s dismissal violated provision in his employment contract, and defendant’s motion for directed verdict was properly denied.
People v Martin, 150 Mich App 630 (1986).
When reviewing denial of motion for directed verdict of acquittal, appellate court must view evidence presented at trial in light most favorable to prosecution and determine whether rational trier of fact could have found that essential elements of crime were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
McClaine v Alger, 150 Mich App 306 (1986), In reviewing grant of motion for directed verdict in favor of defendant, court of appeals must view testimony and all legitimate inferences arising from evidence in light most favorable to plaintiff. When evidence, viewed in this manner, establishes prima facie case, grant of directed verdict must be reversed. Party moving for directed verdict must state specific grounds on which motion is based, and appellate court may not review grounds for sustaining directed verdict that were not first articulated before trial court. Call today to speak with a lawyer who specializes in civil appeals.
The standard of review on appeal is determined by whether a particular issue is a question of law or a question of fact. “Questions of law are reviewed de novo on appeal.” Brucker v McKinlay Transp, 225 Mich App 442 (1997). The proper interpretation of a contract is a question of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal. Phillips v Homer (In re Egbert R Smith Tr), 480 Mich 19 (2008). “[F]actual findings are reviewed under the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review.” Brucker, 225 Mich App at 448.
The initial question of whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law. DaimlerChrysler Corp v Wesco Distribution, the initial question of whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law. DaimlerChrysler Corp v Wesco Distribution, 281 Mch App 240 (2008). Thus, the initial question of whether a given contract is ambiguous is always subject to de novo review. See also DaimlerChrysler Corp (whether contract is ambiguous is question of law for court to decide). The de novo standard of review applies when the contract terms are unambiguous. Prentis Family Found, Inc v Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Inst, 266 Mich App 39 (2005).
On the other hand, the clearly erroneous standard may be applied if the contractual language is ambiguous or incomplete or if the circumstances are unusual. Zinchook v Turkewycz, 128 Mich App 513 (1983). Situations involving extrinsic, nondocumentary evidence are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Brown v Forrester Constr Co, 372 Mich 204 (1963). Call us today to speak with a civil appeals lawyer about your case.
MCR 7.122 governs appeals from zoning ordinance determinations.
(1) This rule governs appeals to the circuit court from a determination under a zoning ordinance by any officer, agency, board, commission, or zoning board of appeals, and by any legislative body of a city, village, township, or county authorized to enact zoning ordinances. Unless this rule provides otherwise, MCR 7.101 to 7.115, apply. This rule does not apply to legislative decisions of a city, village, township, or county, such as the adoption of or amendment to a zoning ordinance.
(2) This rule does not restrict the right of a party to bring a complaint for relief relating to a determination under a zoning ordinance. A party may seek a stay of enforcement under MCR 7.123(E).
(3) An appeal under this section is an appeal of right.
Time Requirements. An appeal under this rule must be filed within the time prescribed by the statute applicable to the appeal. If no time is specified in the applicable statute, the appeal must be filed within 30 days after the certification of the minutes of the board or commission from which the appeal is taken or within 30 days after the board or commission issued its decision in writing, whichever deadline comes first.
(1) Appeals Under MCL 125.3606.
(a) In an appeal from a city, village, township, or county board of zoning appeals, the court shall apply the standard of review under MCL 125.3606(1).
(b) If the court finds the record inadequate to review the decision or finds that additional material evidence exists that with good reason was not presented, the court shall order further zoning board of appeals proceedings on conditions that the court considers proper. The zoning board of appeals may modify the findings and decision as a result of the new proceedings or may affirm the original decision. The supplementary record and decision shall be filed with the court.
(c) The court may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the board of appeals.
(2) Other Appeals. In an appeal from a final determination under a zoning ordinance where no right of appeal to a zoning board of appeals exists, the court shall determine whether the decision was authorized by law and the findings were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record.
Call us today to speak with a civil appeals lawyer about your case.
If you would like information about about filing an appeal of a motion to disqualify a biased judge, click below.
If you would like information about about appealing a zoning ordinance decision, click below.
If you would would like information about appealing an administrative agency decision, click below.
If you would would like information about appealing a Michigan business tort case, click below.
If you would would like information about an appeal involving the statute of limitations for business and civil lawsuits, click below.
If you would would like information about an appeal involving a Michigan land contract, click below.
If you would would like information about an appeal involving a Michigan breach of fiduciary duty case, click below.
If you would would like information about an appeal involving a Michigan construction lien, click below.