Skip to main content

September 2013

Sep 2013
13
September 13, 2013

MSC examines whether it should grant leave to consider effect of amending felony information after statutory period

The Michigan Supreme Court has ordered oral argument regarding whether it should grant leave in People v Siterlet.  The Court directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing regarding: “(1) whether the defendant is entitled to any relief on his claim that the trial court lacked authority to sentence him as a fourth habitual offender, MCL 769.12, due to an invalid post-trial amendment of the notice of intent to seek sentence enhancement, MCL 769.13(1), and where the defendant failed to timely object to the amendment or to his sentencing as a fourth habitual offender; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals correctly analyzed the unpreserved error in this case under ‘plain error’ standards.”  For further information regarding the Court of Appeals opinion in this matter, please see our prior post.

Sep 2013
13
September 13, 2013

COA rules retailers are not entitled to sales tax refund for “bad debts” held by third-party lenders.

In Menard Inc. v. Department of Treasury, the Michigan Court of Appeals interpreted the plain language of the Michigan “bad debt” statute to conclude that retailers could not recover sales taxes they previously paid that were attributable to a bad debt held by a third party lender.

Sep 2013
12
September 12, 2013

COA holds that only a child’s mother and presumed legal father may challenge the child’s legitimacy under the Paternity Act

In Sprenger v Bickle, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff, who claimed to be a child’s biological father, did not have standing to challenge the paternity of the child under the Paternity Act, MCL 722.711  et seq., because only the child’s mother (the defendant) and her current husband could declare that the child was born out of wedlock.

Sep 2013
11
September 11, 2013

COA reinstates pot charges against operators of dispensary, applies MMMA retroactively

The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated marijuana conspiracy charges against multiple individuals who operated a medical marijuana dispensary in Ferndale. The seven defendants committed the acts in question prior to any published decisions on application of the MMMA, particularly the McQueen case specifically holding that dispensaries were not protected.

Sep 2013
11
September 11, 2013

COA strikes down prohibition on instructing juries on misdemeanor moving violation causing death in felony reckless driving prosecutions

The Court of Appeals has held MCL 257.626(5) unconstitutional, affirming a trial court order granting defendant's motion to instruct the jury in a felony reckless-driving-causing-death prosecution about the lesser-included offense of moving violation causing death. The felony statute contains a prohibition on providing the instruction. Judge Ronayne Krause wrote the opinion for herself and Judge Shapiro. Judge Kirsten Frank Kelly dissented.

Sep 2013
05
September 05, 2013

COA holds that no-fault benefits were not triggered when a motorcyclist overreacted to an oncoming vehicle

In Detroit Medical Center v. Progressive Michigan Ins. Co., the Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that a car was not sufficiently involved in a single-vehicle motorcycle accident to trigger personal protection insurance benefits under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3105 and MCL 500.3114. The motorcyclist was traveling over 100 mph down a dark side street, when he was startled by the car's approaching headlights.

Displaying results 13-18 (of 19)
 |<  <  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