Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Dec 2015
December 24, 2015

MSC questions whether worker’s challenge to union agreement that offsets workers’ compensation benefits against social security disability insurance is preempted by federal law

The Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument in Arbuckle v. General Motors LLC, No. 151277, to consider whether the plaintiff’s action challenging a union agreement that offsets his worker’s compensation benefits against his social security disability insurance benefits is preempted by federal law and whether it is governed by state or federal law.


Dec 2015
December 24, 2015

MSC to review the constitutionality of the Electric Transmission Line Certification Act

The Michigan Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal in In re Application of Michigan Electric Transmission Co. for Transmission Line, No. 150695, to determine whether the Electric Transmission Line Certification Act (Act 30)--which authorizes the Public Service Commission to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to a utility for construction of a major transmission line--constitutes a unconstitutional delegation of power.

Dec 2015
December 24, 2015

MSC will examine the collateral attack rule as it applies to cases terminating parental rights

In In re Jones, No. 152595, the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine what a respondent must do to preserve for appeal any alleged errors in adjudication from an order terminating parental rights.  

The Michigan Supreme Court is reconsidering its decision in In re Hatcher, 443 Mich. 426 (1993), to apply "the collateral attack rule to bar a challenge to the adjudication as part of an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, notwithstanding the entry of intervening dispositional orders that were appealable of right, see MCR 3.993(A)(1)."  If the Court determines the opinion was incorrect, the parties must also address what a respondent must do to preserve for appeal any alleged errors in the adjudication, and what effect, if any, a party’s failure to utilize an appeal of right may have on that party’s subsequent appeal of that issue.

Dec 2015
December 23, 2015

COA holds that the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over production company's challenge of Michigan Film Office certification denial

In the consolidated case of Teddy 23, LLC v. Michigan Film Office, Nos. 323299 and 323424, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the Revenue Act confers subject-matter jurisdiction to the Court of Claims for decisions issued by the Department of Treasury, and not the Michigan Film Office.  Additionally, the court held that the Court of Claims Act does not alter avenues of relief for administrative agency appeals.

Dec 2015
December 15, 2015

Trial courts obligated to resolve challenged victim impact statement in PSIR

In People v. Maben, No. 321732, the Court of Appeals held that a trial court must resolve a defendant’s challenge to victim statements contained in a presentence investigation report (“PSIR”) that go beyond describing the subjective impact of a defendant’s actions on a victim. The Court reiterated the significance of the PSIR, as it can affect the security classification or parole considerations of a defendant. Consequently, a defendant must be given an “opportunity to explain, or challenge the accuracy or relevancy of, any information in the presentence report.” MCR 6.425(E)(1)(b). While unchallenged information in the PSIR is presumed accurate, a court deciding to disregard challenged information must state that it did not consider the challenged information when determining the sentence and then strike it from the PSIR.

Displaying results 295-300 (of 500)
 |<  <  46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55  >  >| 

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.



+ -