Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Jun 2017
June 30, 2017

MSC: The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not limit Courts' subject matter jurisdiction

In Winkler v. Marist Fathers of Detroit, Inc., No. 152889, the Michigan Supreme Court held that though the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine (the “Doctrine”) does not allow a court to substitute its opinion for that of a religious entity on matters that are ecclesiastical in nature, it does not divest a court of jurisdiction over claims as a whole just because they involve an ecclesiastical question.

Jun 2017
June 30, 2017

COA endorses streamlined process for amending pleadings

In Stenzel v. Best Buy Company Inc. 328804 a special conflict resolution panel of the Court of Appeals has decided to deviate from Williams v Arbor Home, Inc, 254 Mich App 439; 656 NW2d 873 (2002) and rule that the Michigan Supreme Court intended to streamline the process for amending a pleading to include a new party by allowing a party to file an amended pleading directly under MCR 2.112(K)(4), rather than filing a motion for leave to amend which the court would be required to grant without exception under MCL 600.2957(2). The Court of Appeals decided the two approaches were in direct conflict with one another, but that the constitutional authority granted to the Michigan Supreme Court under Article 6 § 5 to “establish, modify, amend and simplify the practice and procedure in all courts of this state” allowed the court rule to override and control.

Displaying results 55-60 (of 500)
 |<  <  6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15  >  >| 

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.



+ -