Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Jan 2018
January 28, 2018

MSC: When does a trial court lose jurisdiction to resentence a defendant?

The Michigan Supreme Court will hold oral argument in People v. Washington (Case No. 156648) to decide whether to grant leave to appeal.  The parties have been ordered to file supplemental briefing addressing whether the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence Washington while his leave to appeal was pending, and if a jurisdiction defect existed, whether defendant was entitled to raise that defect in his later motion for relief from judgment.  

Jan 2018
January 26, 2018

COA: Defendant did not waive standing defense where consent judgment did not expressly show intent to waive a standing argument

In VHS Huron Valley Sinai Hospital v. Sentinel Insurance Company, 328005, the Court of Appeals applied the holding Michigan Supreme Court in Covenant Med Ctr, Inc v. State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 500 Mich 191; 895 NW2d 490 (2017) that the plaintiff, a health care provider, did not possess a statutory cause of action against no-fault insurers for the recovery of personal protection insurance benefits. Specifically, the court held that: 1) the law set forth in Covenant applied retroactively to Defendant's pending appeal; and 2) Defendant did not waive its defense as to plaintiff’s lack of standing through a stipulated order and consent judgment.

Jan 2018
January 20, 2018

MSC questions whether Grand Rapids implemented a policy of photographing and fingerprinting innocent pedestrians to fail to show ID during investigatory stop

It is unclear whether photographing and fingerprinting during an investigation of suspicious activity is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, as the Court of Appeals noted in Johnson v. Vanderkooi, No. 330536.  And that is why the lower court concluded that Grand Rapids police officers were immune from liability for doing so.  You can find our blog post on that case here.  But the Michigan Supreme Court has nevertheless scheduled oral argument on the question of whether Grand Rapids police officers have implemented such a policy or custom instituted by the defendant City of Grand Rapids.  Johnson v. Vanderkooi, No. 156057.  This most certainly means the MSC is also doubing the Court of Appeals' conclusion that such activity would probably not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Jan 2018
January 08, 2018

Controversial Clio School District ban on open-carrying weapons in schools will be reviewed by the Michigan Supreme Court

In a case that has garnered national attention, Michigan Open Carry Inc. v. Clio School District, No. 155204, the Michigan Supreme Court has ordered supplemental briefing and a mini-oral argument for the parties to address:
(1) whether, in light of MCL 123.1102, it is necessary to consider the factors set forth in People v Llewellyn, 401 Mich 314 (1977), in order to determine whether the school district’s policies are preempted;

(2) if so, whether the Court of Appeals properly analyzed the Llewellyn factors; and

(3) whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the school district’s policies are not preempted.
MCL 123.1102 bans a local unit of government from regulating the transportation or possession of firearms “except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.”  For a summary of and link to the Court of Appeals decision from December 2016 allowing enforcement of the ban, click here.  Given the year-long wait, one might have anticipated an opinion on the application.  An opinion may still be forthcoming, but with oral argument not yet scheduled, the parties will probably have to wait until close to the end of this term for the court to take action on the application, assuming oral argument is eventually scheduled for this term.

Displaying results 7-12 (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.



+ -