Skip to main content

May 2013

May 2013
30
May 30, 2013

COA holds that calculating the specific costs of a case is not necessary when determining court costs

In People v. Cunningham, the Court of Appeals held that $1,000 in court costs imposed in a defendant's felony sentence was reasonable because the prosecutor established a sufficient factual basis for the amount imposed. Defendant argued that the sentencing court erred when it calculated court costs because it should not have considered indirect ove

May 2013
29
May 29, 2013

MSC directs the COA to treat appeal as timely filed to remedy counsel's error

After counsel took sole responsibility for the delay in filing the criminal defendant's appeal, the MSC in People v. Brown ordered the COA to reinstate the criminal defendant's appeal. The court explained that the error had deprived the criminal defendant of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. The court also imposed

May 2013
29
May 29, 2013

COA holds that taxpayer failed to prove entitlement to homestead tax exemption

In Power v. Michigan Dept of Treasury, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a taxpayer was not entitled to a homestead tax exemption because although he leased a house on the property, he did not provide any evidence that he owned the property or that he was a shareholder in the corporation that did. Under the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.7cc(1), the owner o

May 2013
28
May 28, 2013

MSC reaffirms that habeas relief is only appropriate where there is a radical defect in the underlying proceeding or judgment

After originally granting leave to appeal in Kenney v. Booker, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed on Friday the Court of Appeals' judgment denying the petitioner's complaint for habeas corpus. Our prior post concerning the initial grant of leave to appeal can be found here. The

Displaying results 1-6 (of 29)
 |<  < 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5  >  >| 

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