Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Jun 2017
June 02, 2017

COA: For statute of limitations purposes, a wrong is done when the plaintiff is harmed

In Henry v. Dow Chemical Co., No. 328716, the Court of Appeals determined that the statute of limitations begins to run when harm is done to the plaintiff.  A defendant’s act does not cause the statute of limitations to run pursuant to MCL 600.5805(10); rather, the starting point is when harm is done to the plaintiff.

Jun 2017
June 02, 2017

COA: Hearsay laboratory reports welcome at preliminary examination

In People v. Parker, No. 335541, the Court of Appeals held that a district court can admit a hearsay laboratory report during a preliminary examination under the statutory hearsay exception found in MCL 766.11b(1). Prior to this decision, this statute appeared to be in conflict with MCR 6.110(C) and MRE 802, which precludes introduction of a laboratory report as hearsay without exception. Under MCR 6.110(C), the district court must conduct a preliminary examination “in accordance with the Michigan Rules of Evidence” and MRE 802 prohibits a district court from admitting hearsay evidence absent an exception in the rules of evidence. However, MCL 766.11b(1) indicates that “[t]he rules of evidence apply at the preliminary examination except” that the hearsay rule does not preclude certain laboratory reports from being admitted. Therefore, a court rule conflicted with a statute.  However, because MCL 766.11b(1) serves as a substantive rule of evidence, not a procedural one, the statutory exception takes precedence over MCR 6.110(C).


Jun 2017
June 01, 2017

MSC holds that healthcare providers do not have a direct cause of action against no-fault insurers

In Covenant Medical Center, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that under the plain language of Michigan’s no-fault act for automobile accidents, MCL 500.3101 et seq., a healthcare provider does not have a statutory cause of action against a no-fault insurer to recover personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits.

May 2017
May 30, 2017

MSC holds municipal corporations that have not consented to MPSC jurisdiction are not subject to the MPSC’s first entitlement rule

In the consolidated cases City of Holland v. Consumers Energy Co., No. 151053, and City of Coldwater v. Consumers Energy Co., No. 151051, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a utility’s right to first entitlement, which gives the first utility company serving a facility the right to provide for the entire load to the customer, does not apply to municipally owned utilities that have not consented to the Michigan Public Service Commission’s (“MPSC”)  jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court held that customers may receive electric utility services from municipal corporations provided that the customer is not currently receiving services from another utility.

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.



+ -