Skip to main content

June 2016

Jun 2016
30
June 30, 2016

MSC denies leave on challenge to 2014 PA 282

In International Business Machines Corp. v. Department of Treasury, No. 152650, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal from a Court of Appeals decision upholding the constitutionality of 2014 PA 282, a statute the Legislature enacted to retroactively eliminate a taxpayer's ability to elect a three-factor apportionment formula in calculating tax liability.

Jun 2016
29
June 29, 2016

COA: Compliance with FOIA requires a response to, and not fulfillment of, a request for documentation

The Michigan Court of Appeals, in Cramer v. Oakley, No. 330736 held that the government complied with FOIA’s requirement to grant a FOIA request within the statutorily-mandated time period by affirmatively notifying a party that it was granting its request and then supplying the actual documents within a reasonable amount of time after that notification.  The Court concluded that granting and fulfilling a request were two different things.  Because FOIA requires “granting” a request within five business days of its receipt, a government entity need only inform the requesting party whether it will be allowing or denying the request within that time period; it need not actually fulfill the request within those five days.  

Jun 2016
29
June 29, 2016

COA: A child’s videotaped testimony cannot serve as substantive evidence in a parental-rights adjudication hearing

In In re J.R. Martin, Minor, Nos. 330213; 330232, the Court of Appeals held that reliance on videotaped statements, made by witnesses under the age of 16 as substantive evidence, is improper under MCL 712A.17b(5) in a parental-rights adjudication hearing.  Such videotaped statements can be used only to determine whether the person who interviewed the child witness should be able to testify at an adjudication and termination hearing.  If the videotape demonstrates that the “circumstances surrounding the giving of the statement provide adequate indicia of trustworthiness,” then the interviewer may testify at the hearing.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 36)
 |<  < 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