Skip to main content

November 2012

Nov 2012
28
November 28, 2012

COA Opinion: Appraisal process under property insurance policy does not constitute a "verdict" for purposes of case evaluation sanctions

The Court of Appeals published its per curiam decision in Acorn Investment Co. v. Michigan Basic Prop Ins. Ass'n, where it concluded that an appraisal of a property loss pursuant to an insurance policy does not constitute a verdict for purposes of the imposition of case evaluation sanctions. Specifically, in this case, the insurer had denied covera

Nov 2012
26
November 26, 2012

COA Opinion: Court considers the "business use" exclusion of an insurance policy

In Hunt v Drielick, a consolidated appeal, the Court of Appeals considered whether a 'business use' exclusion in the trucking company's insurance policy justified denial of coverage. The insurance company had issued a non-trucking or "bobtail" policy that only covered damages incurred when the truck was not engaged in the busin

Nov 2012
16
November 16, 2012

COA Opinion: Sentencing as sexual delinquent requires separate hearing after plea of nolo contendere

The defendant in People v. Franklin had been convicted by the trial court of indecent exposure and aggravated indecent exposure, and was sentenced for the latter crime as a sexual delinquent. Following remand by the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals vacated its original opinion. In this new opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court was req

Nov 2012
16
November 16, 2012

COA Opinion: Court may not aggregate smaller deliveries to support conviction for delivery of a greater quantity of drugs

In People v. Collins, the Court of Appeals upheld several drug-related convictions against the defendant, but vacated his conviction of delivering 50 to 450 grams of heroin. There was no evidence in the record that the defendant delivered more than 50 grams of heroin in a single transaction. The relevant statute defines 'delivery' using the term 'transfer' in its

Nov 2012
16
November 16, 2012

COA Opinion: An action to enforce a guaranty does not preclude foreclosure by advertisement

In Canvasser Heritage, LLC v Fifth Third Bank, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant bank could foreclose by advertisment on a mortgage despite its previous action to recover on related guaranties. Because a guaranty is a deb

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