Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

October 25, 2011

MSC Order List: October 24, 2011

On Monday, October 24, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court denied 102 applications for leave to appeal, 11 motions for reconsideration, and remanded two cases to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration as on leave granted of the Court of Appeals' previous orders denying appellants' applications for leave to appeal.

The Court also remanded three cases which had been previously held in abeyance pending the Court's decision in similar cases.

In Hoffman v. Barrett, Case No. 141407, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the matter to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 490 Mich. 61 (2011). In Crittenton, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a defective affidavit of merit in a medical malpractice case may not be retroactively amended after the statute of limitations period has passed. Our previous post concerning the Court's decision in Crittenton, is here. Justice Cavanagh dissented from the order and noted that he would have granted leave to appeal. Justice Marilyn Kelly wrote that she would have grated leave to appeal to reconsider Ligons.

The Court also remanded two cases in light of its recent ruling in People v. Dowdy, 489 Mich. 373 (2011) that homeless sex offenders are not exempt from the reporting and notification requirements of the Sex Offender Registration Act ('sORA'). Our post discussing the Court's ruling in Dowdy can be found here.

In People v. Farquharson, Case No. 141761, the Court vacated the prior judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the matter to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Dowdy. In People v. Bell, Case No. 141340, the Court reversed the district court's order dismissing the charges and remanded the case back to the 12th District Court. In its order, the Supreme Court stated that even if he was homeless, Bell was obligated to inform officers within 10 days after he vacated his previously registered residence or domicile. Homelessness does not prevent a sex offender from complying with SORA's notification obligation. Accordingly, the Court held that the district court erred in concluding that the homeless defendant was not statutorily mandated to register 'something'. In both Farquharson and Bell, Justice Cavanagh dissented from the order remanding the case and noted he would have granted leave to appeal. Justice Marilyn Kelly wrote that she would have grated leave to appeal to reconsider Dowdy.

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