Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Dec 2017
07
December 07, 2017

COA: A Petitioner is entitled to a Principal Residence Exemption even if the subject property is rented for more than 14 days in a year

In Rentschler v. Township of Melrose, No. 33633, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether an individual is entitled to a Principal Residence Exemption (PRE) even though the individual rented the residence for over 14 days in a year. Specifically the court addressed whether the provision of the Michigan Department of Treasury Guidelines for the Principal Resident Exemption program (PRE guidelines) relied on by the Tax Tribunal in denying the petitioner’s PRE was consistent with General Property Tax Act (“GPTA”). The Court of Appeals held it was not.

Nov 2017
28
November 28, 2017

MSC overrules COA decision holding a motion to change schools is not an order affecting the custody of a minor

After hearing mini-oral argument in Marik v. Marik, No. 154549, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ order and remanded to the trial court to reconsider whether a court’s postjudgment order denying a party’s request to change a minor child’s school enrollment is a “postjudgment order affecting the custody of a minor” and therefore a “final order” under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii).  We previously blogged about Marik here

Nov 2017
15
November 15, 2017

MSC to consider scope of rape-shield statute

The Michigan Supreme Court will consider whether, in a criminal sexual conduct case, evidence of a victim’s pregnancy, lack of prior sexual activity, and abortion is barred by the rape-shield statute as “[e]vidence of specific instances of the victim’s sexual conduct, opinion evidence of the victim’s sexual conduct, [or] reputation evidence of the victim’s sexual conduct...” MCL 750.520j(1). The parties in People v. Sharpe, Case Nos. 155747-8, also have been asked to address whether, if the evidence is covered by the rape-shield statute, it is nonetheless admissible under one of the statute’s exceptions.  Further, if the evidence is not barred by the rape-shield statute, the parties have been asked to address whether the evidence is admissible under MRE 402 and MRE 403.  The Court of Appeals previously held that the evidence is not necessarily barred by MRE 404(a) or Michigan’s rape-shield statute.  Our blog post discussing the Court of Appeal’s opinion can be found here.
 

Nov 2017
13
November 13, 2017

MSC to decide whether recanting witness's testimony pointing to a different killer requires new trial for convicted co-defendants

The Michigan Supreme Court has found interest in a decades-old murder case where the man who witnessed his mother's murder when he was 8 years old has come forward to testify that the killer was someone other than the convicted defendants.  The two co-defendants in People v. Johnson, No. 154128, and People v. Scott, No. 154130, seek relief from judgment on the basis that the testimony of the son—who previously would not or could not (due to mental trauma) identify the killer—constitutes newly discovered evidence that warrants a retrial.  Interestingly, Justice McCormack has recused herself because of her involvement as counsel for a codefendant, and Justice Wilder has recused himself as a member of a panel involved in deciding a peremptory reversal motion filed in the underlying appeal.  Click on the blog title to read more.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 500)
 |<  < 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10  >  >| 

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