MCS to consider whether punishment for both OWI and OWI causing serious injury violates Double Jeopardy

In People v. Miller, Case No. 149502, the Michigan Supreme Court granted the defendant leave to appeal so the court could consider whether the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Michigan and United States Constitutions prohibit punishment for both Operating While Intoxicated causing serious injury, MCL 257.625(5), and Operating While Intoxicated, MCL 257.625(1) and (9)(a). The compound offense of OWI causing serious injury and the predicate offense of OWI have alternative elements. The Court also ordered the parties to brief: 1) whether the existence of prior convictions under third-offense OWI, MCL 257.625(9)(c), amounts to an element for the purposes of Double Jeopardy analysis the provision punishing OWI after two prior OWI convictions, MCL 257.625(9)(c); and, 2) whether punishment for both third-offense OWI and OWI causing serious bodily injury violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Read More

SORA survives another attack as COA holds that sex offender registration not “punishment” for purposes of the U.S. or Michigan Constitutions

In People v. Temelkoski, No. 313670, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed that mandatory registration under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., does not constitute “punishment” for purposes of the United States or Michigan Constitutions.  Because SORA registration is not punitive, this defendant’s required registration does not violate either the Ex Post Facto Clause, or United States and Michigan constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.  Finally, the court concluded that in light of the specific facts and circumstances of this case, the adverse effects of SORA registration are not “overly excessive” compared to the regulatory purpose of registration.
Read More

Business Journal highlights Supreme Court practice group at Warner Norcross & Judd

The Grand Rapids Business Journal writes in its most recent issue about the burgeoning U.S. and Michigan Supreme Court practices at Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, publisher of the One Court of Justice Blog. The article is available here. Read More

COA holds that negligent procurement or advice claims against insurance agents sound in negligence, not malpractice

In Stephens v. Worden Insurance Agency, No. 314700, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a claim for injury resulting from an insurance agent’s failure to procure the coverage requested by the insured is an ordinary negligence claim, not a professional malpractice claim. The court also held that such a claim accrues when the insurer denies the claim. Read More

COA: procedural flaw insufficient to set aside a foreclosue by advertisement absent prejudice

In Phillip J. Diem v. Sallie Mae Home Loans Inc., et al., No. 317499 the Michigan Court of Appeals held that to challenge a residential foreclosure by advertisement, the plaintiff must show that it was prejudiced by the defects in the foreclosure procedures. Read More
Displaying results 1-5 (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.