Skip to main content

May 2014

May 2014
30
May 30, 2014

COA holds that receiver cannot collaterally attack decision of State Tax Commission

In Director, Workers Compensation Agency v. MacDonald’s Industrial Products, Inc., the Court of Appeals reviewed several issues related to a receiver’s payment of property taxes. Among other things, the Court held that the receiver could not collaterally attack decision of State Tax Commission to revoke certain exemption certificates retroactively—regardless of whether the revocation was proper.

May 2014
30
May 30, 2014

COA remands case for new trial in light of People v. Moreno, where jury was not instructed regarding lawfulness of arrest

In People v. Quinn, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of People v. Moreno, 491 Mich. 38; 814 N.W.2d 624 (2012), the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury that “lawfulness of arrest” was an element of resisting and obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.81d(1).  Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to a new trial.

May 2014
30
May 30, 2014

MSC rules that restitution award can include a victim’s travel expenses if those expenses are a direct result of the defendant’s criminal course of conduct.

In People v. Garrison, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a restitution award can include a victim’s travel expenses to recover stolen property and attend a restitution hearing.  The Court explained that even though traveling expenses were not expressly listed in the governing statute, providing for traveling expenses may nonetheless be necessary to provide full and maximal restitution where the expenses resulted from the criminal course of conduct.  

May 2014
29
May 29, 2014

COA absolves individuals from personal liability for corporate taxes where those taxes where assessed prior to those individuals service as corporate officers

In Shotwell v. Department of Treasury, the Michigan Court of Appeals narrowly interpreted § 27a(5) of MCL 205.1 et seq. to maintain that a de facto officer of a corporation may not be held personally liable for tax assessments issued prior to that individual officially assuming a corporate officer position.  

May 2014
29
May 29, 2014

COA absolves individuals from personal liability for corporate taxes where those taxes where assessed prior to those individuals service as corporate officers

In Shotwell v. Department of Treasury, the Michigan Court of Appeals narrowly interpreted § 27a(5) of MCL 205.1 et seq. to maintain that a de facto officer of a corporation may not be held personally liable for tax assessments issued prior to that individual officially assuming a corporate officer position.  

May 2014
29
May 29, 2014

COA finds that challenge to court's jurisdiction over minor children was untimely where it was not raised until after entry of an order terminating parental rights

In In re Wangler, the Court of Appeals examined the validity of a trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over three minor children. Following an order terminating the respondent’s parental rights to the children, the respondent appealed the trial court’s order and challenged the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the minor children. Holding that the respondent’s challenge was an impermissible collateral attack on the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the respondent’s parental rights.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 33)
 |<  < 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