Skip to main content

March 2015

Mar 2015
29
March 29, 2015

COA holds that defendant must register under SORA even where conviction for unlawful imprisonment of minor involved no sexual contact

In People v. Bosca, No. 317633, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in requiring the defendant to register as a sex offender, where the defendant was convicted of unlawful imprisonment of a minor in violation of MCL 750.349b.  The Court determined that the required registration was constitutional and was proper under the 2011 version of SORA applicable in this case.  Even though the underlying conduct was not of a sexual nature, registration is required because unlawful imprisonment involved a victim under the age of 18 is a listed offense

Mar 2015
29
March 29, 2015

MSC grants mini-oral argument to consider whether termination of parental rights was in best interests of child

The Michigan Supreme Court has granted mini-oral argument in In re McCarthy, 151039, to hear whether termination of parental rights was in the best interests of a child. The Court directed the parties to focus on the effect given to the child’s age, her expressed desire for her mother to retain parental rights, and the lawyer-guardian ad litem’s concurrence that parental rights should not be terminated.

Mar 2015
29
Mar 2015
29
March 29, 2015

COA: dismissal of medical malpractice action against doctor without prejudice does not bar an action against doctor’s principals

The Court of Appeals held in Estate of Grimmer v. Lee, No. 318046, that a plaintiff may continue with a medical malpractice action against a doctor’s professional corporations on the basis of vicarious liability even when the doctor has been dismissed from the case without prejudice. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant professional corporations.

Mar 2015
28
March 28, 2015

COA holds Fraternal Order of Police Associates and Olympia Entertainment are not liable for homicides after serving alcohol to murderer

The Michigan Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases of Auto Owners Insurance Co. v Olympia Entertainment Inc., No. 315891 and Seils v Fraternal Order of Police Associates, Nos. 315901 & 316511, held that (i) an exclusion in an insurance policy for a company engaging in the business of alcohol did not apply to the Fraternal Order of Police Associates (“FOPA”) as the organization did not engage in alcohol sales on a continuous, ongoing basis; (ii) serving alcohol to an intoxicated individual is not the proximate cause of that individual committing a violent intentional act; (iii) the Michigan Dramshop Act does not permit a claim for vicarious liability to an entity that does not hold the liquor license; and (iv) a courtesy copy of a notice sent to another party is not sufficient for notice under the Dramshop Act.

Mar 2015
27
March 27, 2015

MSC will consider whether trial court erred by admitting entire recording of interrogation and testimony regarding sexual abuse accommodation syndrome

In People v. Tomasik, No. 149371, the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the trial court erred by (1) admitting a recording of the entire police interrogation; (2) admitting expert testimony regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome under MRE 702; and (3) denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial based on newly disclosed impeachment evidence from a 2003 report concluding that the abuse victim tended to be dishonest.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 32)
 |<  < 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