Skip to main content

November 2015

Nov 2015
30
November 30, 2015

COA reaffirms that the framework established by Smith should be followed in determining the award of attorney fees

In Kennedy v. Robert Lee Auto Sales, No. 322523, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred when it arbitrarily ordered attorney fees and costs and failed to follow the framework established by the Michigan Supreme Court in Smith v. Khouri, 481 Mich. 519 (2008).  The Court of Appeals concluded that, the framework should be followed by the trial court in its determination of awarding attorney fees and costs to parties under the fee-shifting statutes involved in this particular case, namely, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”) and Michigan Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”).  The Court of Appeals further noted that the Smith framework needed “some fine-tuning” and provided guidelines for the trial court to follow in its determination on remand.

Nov 2015
30
November 30, 2015

COA: Property owners association cannot use bylaws to impose new and expanded restrictions on a development without unanimous consent

In Conlin v. Upton, No. 322458, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a property owners association cannot regulate properties through bylaws, unless the authority is derived from the original covenants and restrictions placed on the land.  Additionally, the association cannot authorize the imposition of new or expanded restrictions with less than unanimous consent.

Nov 2015
26
November 26, 2015

MOAA may soon resolve definition of "public official" under the Open Meetings Act

In Bitterman v. Bolf, No. 151520, the Michigan Supreme Court is set to address how the court should define the term “public official” under Section 13(1) of the Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.273(1).  The court will review the Court of Appeals reasoning that the village clerk for Oakley is not a public official because she is not a member of a public body, in this case, the village council.  The court has ordered the parties to address the definition of the term “public official” under the Act. 

Nov 2015
25
November 25, 2015

Steanhouse revisited: COA panel disagrees with “principle of proportionality” test.

The Michigan Court of Appeals, in the consolidated opinions of People v. Masroor, Nos. 322280; 322281; 322282, has brought into question its recent decision in People v. Steanhouse (Docket No. 318329, issued October 22, 2015).  In Steanhouse, which we blogged about here, the Court of Appeals held that trial courts should employ a “principle of proportionality” test when departing from an advisory sentencing guideline range.  This test requires that sentences be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.  Nonetheless, the Michigan Court of Appeals stated here that it disagrees with the analysis set forth in Steanhouse, and if it were not bound by that decision, it would affirm the defendant’s sentence by applying the federal “reasonableness” standard.

Nov 2015
25
November 25, 2015

Patients, beware: MMMA does not permit smoking in vehicle parked on public lot

In People v. Carlton, No. 321630, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the immunity and defense provided under the Medical Marihuana Act do not apply to a person who smokes marijuana in a privately owned vehicle parked in a private business’s parking lot open to the public. Defendant, a medical marijuana patient, parked his car in the public parking lot of Soaring Eagle Casino and began smoking marijuana while inside of the car. Upon discovery by casino security, Defendant admitted to police that he was smoking marijuana inside of the car.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 21)
 |<  < 1 - 2 - 3 - 4  >  >| 

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