COA holds that order denying a motion to change schools is not an order affecting the custody of a minor

In Ozimek v. Rodgers, No. 331726, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that an order denying a motion to change schools is not an order affecting the custody of a child under the Michigan Court Rule regarding jurisdiction, MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii).  Therefore, in this case, the Court did not have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s appeal. Read More

COA holds that petitioner failed to rebut the fit-parent presumption in grandparenting time petition

In Zawilanski v. Marshall, No. 330495, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that in order to overcome a fit parent’s decision to deny grandparenting time, the petitioner must overcome a rebuttable presumption that the fit-parent’s denial does not create a substantial risk of harm to the minor-child’s mental, physical, or emotional health.  Here, the Court held the referee and trial court did not require the petitioner to rebut this presumption and thus committed clear legal error.
Read More

COA holds that order requiring instant makeup of parenting time is not an order that affects custody and therefore is not appealable by right

In Madson v. Jaso, No. 331605, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a provisional post-judgment order for makeup parenting time is not an order affecting the custody of a child under the Michigan Court Rule regarding jurisdiction, MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii).  Therefore, in this case, the Court did not have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s appeal.
Read More

COA holds that Judge Peter D. O’Connell is not the incumbent for the office held by Judge Michael Gadola

In O’Connell v. Director of Elections, No. 334365, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that Court of Appeals Judge Peter D. O’Connell is not the incumbent for the office currently held by Judge Michael Gadola.  The Court found that the incumbency status is reserved for the judge running for reelection to a term consecutive to his or her own term, and that sole incumbent in this case is Judge Gadola.
Read More

COA holds that hospital cannot be held vicariously liable for on-call physician

A hospital’s comprehensive on-call policy does not afford it adequate control over on-call physicians to sustain a claim of vicarious liability, says the Michigan Court of Appeals in Laster v. Henry Ford Health System, No. 324739. Read More

COA: More evidence is required to determine whether complaint's allegations sound in medical malpractice or ordinary negligence

In Trowell v. Providence Hospital and Medical Centers, Inc., No. 327525, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition to allow further factual development to ascertain whether plaintiff’s claims sounded in medical malpractice or ordinary negligence. Read More

COA Panel disagrees with recent precedent that limits plaintiffs’ no-fault recovery options

The innocent third-party doctrine no longer applies in the context of an insurer’s responsibility for personal protection benefits, allowing an insurer to rescind its policy that was procured by fraud even as it relates to a third-party, says the Michigan Court of Appeals in Southeast Michigan Surgical Hospital v Allstate Insurance Co., No. 323425.  This panel of the Court of Appeals indicates this result is required by controlling precedent, but disagrees with that rule and declares a conflict with that prior opinion.  Read More

COA holds that a medical malpractice claim runs from when plaintiff “should have” discovered the claim, not when it “could have” discovered it

Under MCL 600.5838a, which governs claims based on medical malpractice, a medical malpractice claim must be commenced within 6 months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of a claim, not “could have” discovered a claim, held the Michigan Court of Appeals in Jendrusina v. Mishra, No. 325133.
Read More

COA holds that a claim properly under the Court of Claims’ jurisdiction may be joined with a claim in a circuit court through the parties’ conduct

Matters within the Court of Claims’ jurisdiction may be joined without any formal approval and litigated in circuit court, if the parties continue to litigate in circuit court after the statutory right of removal becomes available, held the Michigan Court of Appeals in Baynesan v. Wayne State University, No. 326132. Read More

COA: Three year limitations period governs plaintiff's discrimination claims

In Major v. Village of Newberry, No. 322368, the Court of Appeals held that a three-year limitation period is applicable to recover damages for injury to a person, despite a shorter limitations period being set forth by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Michigan’s Department of Civil Rights (MDCR).  Furthermore, the court held that evidence of direct statements and affidavits are sufficient for age and sex discrimination claims to survive summary disposition. 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.

ACCEPTCANCEL