Skip to main content

August 2015

Aug 2015
24
August 24, 2015

COA holds there is no right to a limited medical license for individuals denied access to postgraduate residency program

Does an individual who has completed medical school in a foreign country and who has been denied entrance into a domestic residency program have the right to a limited license to practice medicine?  This is the issue the Court of Appeals considered in Murphy-Dubay v. Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, Nos. 321380, 321749.  The Court held that under Michigan’s Public Health Code, MCL § 333.16182, there is no right to a limited license.  The Court further held that the limited license sought by plaintiff did not exist and that therefore he could not be said to have been “denied” a license and was not entitled to a hearing.

Aug 2015
24
August 24, 2015

COA: Jury must determine sentence for juvenile homicide offenders facing the possibility of life without parole

In People v. Skinner, No. 317892, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that where juvenile homicide offenders face the possible sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole, the Sixth Amendment requires that their sentence must be determined by a jury. In doing so, the court held that MCL 769.25 violated the Sixth Amendment because it authorizes a judge to sentence a juvenile offender to life in prison without parole based on judicially-found facts. 

Aug 2015
20
August 20, 2015

COA finds that ESPN is entitled to names of MSU student-athletes named as suspects in University police incident reports

In ESPN, Inc. v. Michigan State University, No 326773, the Court of Appeals concluded that the privacy exemption of Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) was not applicable to the redacted names of Michigan State University (“MSU”) student-athletes listed as suspects in the incident reports that ESPN had requested.  As such, MSU must reveal the names of the student-athlete suspects.

Aug 2015
20
August 20, 2015

COA affirms custody, child support, and attorney fee decisions in custody battle

In Reimer v. Johnson, No. 321057, the parties, who had never been married, had a four-year-old child. The parties’ relationship began to deteriorate after their child was born, and the father filed a custody suit.  After a 19 day trial, the court awarded shared physical custody, joint legal custody, ordered the father to pay child support to the mother, and ordered the father to pay both his attorney fees and a portion of the mother’s.
 
On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly weighed the best interest factors contained in MCL 722.23, and properly found that both parents could care for the child and provide the child with love and affection. The court also held that the trial court did not err in providing for parenting time with the father to gradually increase over time. Since gradual changes are contemplated in the original order, the gradual changes do not constitute a modification or amendment that would require a change in circumstances. The Court of Appeals held that child support was properly calculated and the trial court did not err in excluding depreciation taken by the father’s LLCs, nor by declining to deviate downward from the guidelines. The court also affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, approving of the trial court’s method of creating a “war chest” of a total amount of attorney’s fees and dividing them between each party in proportion to their income.

Aug 2015
19
August 19, 2015

COA: Defendant is entitled to withdraw plea if court did not comply with MCR 6.610(E)(4)

In People v. Al-Shara, No. 320209, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that where a district court failed to comply with MCR 6.610(E)(4), by failing to confirm that the defendant understood the written waiver of rights executed pursuant to a nolo contender plea, the defendant was automatically entitled to withdraw his plea. 

Displaying results 7-12 (of 16)
 |<  <  1 - 2 - 3  >  >| 

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