COA: MERC erred in refusing to permit employer to pursue an alternative claim

In Faust Public Library v. AFSCME Council 25, No. 318467, the Court of Appeals found that there was competent, material, and substantial evidence to support the Michigan Employment Relations Commission’s (“MERC”) conclusion that the head of the Library’s children’s services department did not qualify as a statutory supervisor. As such, the challenged ballot cast by that employee in a union representation election would be opened and counted with the election results.  However, the Court concluded that the MERC erred in refusing to permit the Library to pursue an alternative claim that if the head of the children’s services department is a nonsupervisory position, then the heads of two other departments are also nonsupervisory positions such that the challenged ballots cast by those two employees should also be opened and counted. Read More

MSC: Defendant is entitled to new trial because trial court’s conduct created appearance of advocacy or partiality against a party

In People v. Stevens, No. 149380, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the defendant was entitled to a new trial, in front of a different judge, because the nature and tone of the judge’s demeanor during trial amounted to bias against the defendant.  In reaching this conclusion, the court ruled that a judge’s conduct violates the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial when, in light of all of the circumstances of trial, it is likely that the judge’s conduct created the appearance of advocacy for or partiality against a party. 
Read More

MSC decides ninth MMMA case in just three years in latest attempt to clarify the law.

In the combined cases of People v. Hartwick, No. 148444, and People v. Tuttle, No. 148971, the Michigan Supreme Court granted defendants’ leave to appeal to once again called upon to interpret two important sections of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).  The Court held that under Section 4, the availability of immunity is a question of law to be decided before trial, and a defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence his or her entitlement to immunity. Under Section 8, a caregiver must present prima facie evidence of each element of the defense for him- or herself and for each registered qualifying patient to which the caregiver is connected to raise an affirmative defense.  Read More

COA: A properly crafted named-driver exclusion in a vehicle insurance policy allows insurers to exclude coverage for damages caused by specific drivers

In Frankenmuth Insurance Co. v. Poll, No. 320674, the Michigan Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition as well as de novo issues involving statutory construction and construction of insurance contracts as they apply to named-driver exclusion provisions in an insurance policy under the No-Fault Act, MCL 500.3101. The Court of Appeals held that a named-driver exclusion may allow insurers to exclude specific drivers from an insurance policy. Read More

MSC rules that convictions for both OWI and OWI causing injury, arising out of same incident, violates double jeopardy

In People v. Miller, No. 149502, the Michigan Supreme Court held that conviction and punishment of both operating while intoxicated (“OWI”) and operating while intoxicated causing serious impairment of another person’s body function (“OWI-injury”) arising from the same incident violates the constitutional protection of double jeopardy. Except where explicitly authorized by statute, double jeopardy protects defendants against successive prosecutions for the same offense and against the imposition of multiple punishments for the same offense. 
Read More

Interview with SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito

Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, is posting a series of thought provoking conversations with some of America's leading public figures.  This week's interview features U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Read More

COA requires clear and convincing evidence of arbitrary and capricious decision-making to overturn adoption decisions of the Michigan Children's Institute

In In re ASF, Minor, No. 324821, the Michigan Court of Appeals considered what evidence is sufficient to successfully challenge the determination of the superintendent of the Michigan Children’s Institute withholding consent for adoption.  Because the Court determined that the trial court did not clearly err when it found that petitioners failed to present clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that the superintendent’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, the Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court upholding the superintendent’s decision denying consent for the adoption. Read More

COA holds that utility companies may install “smart meters” on customer property and enter onto property without owner permission

The Michigan Court of Appeals in Detroit Edison Company  v. Stenman, No. 321203, held that Michigan utility provider, Detroit Edison Company (“DTE”), may install “smart meters” on customer property, and the installation of the meters did not violate the property owners’ health and privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. It further held that DTE may enter onto real property to service its equipment without landowner permission. Read More

COA determines that an assignee of a cause of action becomes the real party in interest with respect to that cause of action

In the consolidated cases of Cannon Township v. Rockford Public Schools, Nos. 320683 and 320940, the Court of Appeals held that an agreement assigning a cause of action to another party creates a real party in interest. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Rockford Public Schools’ (RPS) motion for summary disposition against Cannon Township. Read More

COA: Tort claimant suing transit authority cannot satisfy statutory requirement of timely written notice of claims by filing application for no-fault benefits

In Clay v. Doe, No. 321008, the Court of Appeals held that a tort claimant bringing suit against a transportation authority must provide the authority with written notice of the claim no later than 60 days from the injury occurrence pursuant to Michigan’s Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act of 1967, MCL 124.419.  Additionally, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed that an application for no-fault benefits from a transit authority’s insurance administrator does not comply with the 60-day notice requirement.   Read More
Displaying results 1-10 (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.