Skip to main content

August 2012

Aug 2012
01
August 01, 2012

COA Opinion: Audio recorded settlement agreement in divorce proceeding is binding

The parties in Vittiglio v. Vittiglio reached a settlement agreement during a mediation, and both parties acknowledged the terms of the agreement in an audio recording. The plaintiff later tried to disavow the agreement, claiming that an audio recording of a settlement is only binding in a 'domestic relations case' under MCR 3.216(A)(1). The Michigan Court of Appe

Aug 2012
01
August 01, 2012

MSC Opinion: 'Open and obvious' dangers do not create tort damages in slip and fall injury cases except in very narrow circumstances

In Hoffner v Lanctoe, the Michigan Supreme Court held that an 'invitee''plaintiff, who knowingly crossed ice to enter her exercise facility, was not entitled to tort recoveries as the danger was 'open and obvious' but not of a 'special aspect' to make the 'risk unreasonably dangerous.' After mini-oral argument on the application for leave,

Aug 2012
01
August 01, 2012

MSC Opinion: Newly discovered impeachment evidence can be grounds for new trial.

In People v. Grissom, the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously held that newly discovered impeachment evidence could, in certain rare circumstances, be grounds for a new trial. The court split 4-3, however, over whether this particular case qualified. Following his conviction for rape, the defendant hired an investigator who discovered the victim, a

Aug 2012
01
August 01, 2012

COA Opinion: Majority asks for conflict panel to be convened to determine whether persons convicted of CSC-I, where the victim is 13 or older, are subject to mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring

In People v. King, Case No. 301793, the Court of Appeals upheld the provision in the defendant's sentence subjecting him to lifetime electronic monitoring following his conviction for two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree ('CSC-I') where the victim was 13 years old. The Court noted that it reached this result only because it was

Aug 2012
01
August 01, 2012

MSC Opinion: "Forbidden" drivers are not entitled to PIP benefits

In a consolidated opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court held that drivers who are injured while driving a vehicle that they were explicitly forbidden to drive are deemed to have "taken [that vehicle] unlawfully" and thus are not entitled to PIP benefits under the plain language of the No Fault Act. In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court decided that a

Displaying results 19-24 (of 31)
 |<  <  1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6  >  >| 

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset