Skip to main content
June 24, 2010

MSC Order List: June 23, 2010

On Wednesday, June 23, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court denied seventeen applications for leave to appeal and one motion for reconsideration.' In addition, the Court granted various procedural motions including several motions for leave to submit amicus curiae briefs.' The Court also took substantive action in four cases.' In Harrington v. Fatchett-Harrington, No. 140833, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Court vacated the order of the Court of Appeals which had dismissed plaintiffƒ''s claim of appeal and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reinstatement of the appeal.' In Woodward Parking Co. v. City of Detroit, No. 140073, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals' decision in light of the Courtƒ''s decision in Briggs Tax Service, LLC. v. Detroit Public Schools.' In People v. LaRose, No. 139699, the Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals after determining that the defendant-appellant was deprived of a direct appeal as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel.' Finally, the Court granted leave to appeal in Hamed v. Wayne County, No. 139505 to clarify the application of Michiganƒ''s Civil Rights Act to prisoners.' The Woodward Parking, LaRose, and Hamed cases are discussed further after the jump.

In Woodward Parking Co. v. City of Detroit, No. 140073, the Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had peremptorily reversed the Tax Tribunalƒ''s decision to dismiss the petitionerƒ''s claims, and reinstated the decision of the Tax Tribunal.' The application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2009 Court of Appeals decision had been held in abeyance pending the Courtƒ''s decision in Briggs Tax Service, LLC. v. Detroit Public Schools. The Briggs decision was released on March 30, 2010.' 485 Mich. 69 (2010).' In light of that decision, the Court held that the assessing officer and petitioner in Woodward made a mutual mistake of fact.' As a result, the three-year statute of limitations period of MCL '' 211.53a does not apply to petitionerƒ''s claim.' Therefore, the Tax Tribunal did not err in dismissing plaintiffƒ''s claim.

The Court remanded the case of People v. LaRose, No. 139699, to the Court of Appeals after determining that the defendant-appellant was deprived of a direct appeal as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, the Court held that defendant-appellantƒ''s former counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by presenting motions in the trial court despite knowing that the deadline for filing those motions had passed before he was retained and by failing to file the defendantƒ''s application for leave to appeal within the deadline set-out in MCR 7.205(F).' The Court concluded that ƒ''but-forƒ' these actions and omissions, the defendant would not have lost his appeal.' The Court remanded this matter to the Court of Appeals for consideration as if the application for leave to appeal had been timely filed.' The Court also sanctioned defendantƒ''s former counsel.

The Court granted leave to appeal the Court of Appealsƒ'' judgment in the matter of Hamed v. Wayne County, No. 139505.' The case arises from the rape of a prisoner in the Wayne County Jail by a corrections officer.' On appeal, the Court will consider the following issues:' (1) whether defendants Wayne County and Wayne County Sheriffƒ''s Department may be held liable to the plaintiff for quid-pro-quo sexual harassment pursuant to MCL '' 37.2103(i); (2) whether the plaintiffƒ''s incarceration in the Wayne County Jail is a public service pursuant to MCL '' 37.2301(b); and (3) whether the trail court erred in permitting the plaintiff to amend her complaint to allege violation of the Michigan Civil Rights Act.' The Court' inivited amicus briefs' from the Michigan Association for Justice and Michigan Defense Trial Counsel Inc.

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