Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Jul 2017
21
July 21, 2017

COA: Criminal defendant cannot withdraw plea even if court erroneously informed defendant that maximum possible sentence longer than correct maximum sentence

In People v. Winters, No. 333009, the Court of Appeals held that telling a Defendant that the maximum possible sentence for attempted arson was longer than the correct maximum sentence did not prejudice the Defendant such that he would be allowed to withdraw his plea.
 

Jul 2017
20
July 20, 2017

COA determines that public school employees are required to be deemed totally and permanently disabled by an independent medical advisor to receive disability benefits

In Escott v. Public School Employees’ Retirement Board, No. 333264, the Court of Appeals determined that the Public School Employees’ Retirement Board (“PSERB”) has no authority to grant non-duty disability retirement benefits to a public school employee unless and Independent Medical Advisor has deemed the employee totally and permanently disabled.

Jul 2017
19
July 19, 2017

COA: Schools Boards do not have to recall laid off teachers to fill job openings in different subject matter

In Southfield Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of Educ. of the Southfield Pub. Schools, No. 331087, the Court of Appeals determined that school boards reserve the right not to hire teachers who have been previously laid off and have high evaluation scores if they have not been evaluated for teaching the subject matter the job opening includes. Teachers with high effectiveness evaluation ratings who have been laid off are not obligated to be recalled by school boards for open positions if their evaluations are not for the subject matter of the position being advertised. However, the Court of Appeals has given the school boards the discretion to make such appointments if they deem it proper.

Jul 2017
19
July 19, 2017

COA: There is no statute of limitations for filing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order

It seems there is no longer a statute of limitations on entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In Joughin v. Joughin, No. 329993, the defendant ex-husband attempted to appeal an order entering a QDRO that would entitle his ex-wife to $23,823 from his Iron Workers Local #55 Profit Sharing Annuity Plan and Trust, arguing that 10-year statute of limitations bars the entry of that order given the fact that the divorce judgment was finalized almost 12 years prior. The majority of the Court of Appeals panel stated that the entering of a QDRO as part of a divorce judgment is considered a “ministerial” task, not a non-contractual money obligation, which carries the 10 year statute of limitations. This allowed the plaintiff to file the order and receive payment.

Jul 2017
19
July 19, 2017

COA: Insurer does not have to defend a lawsuit against a police officer that alleges conduct outside the of scope of employment

The Michigan Court of Appeals, in Matouk v. Michigan Municipal League Liability & Property Pool, No. 332482, reversed the trial court’s decision and held that an insurance company was not contractually required to provide a defense for a police officer in a federal civil rights action because the complaint alleged conduct that was not within the scope of the officer’s employment as that term was used in the insurer’s policy.

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