Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Jul 2016
27
July 27, 2016

COA holds that “rule of mandate” prevents lower court from exceeding scope of remand order

In International Business Machines Corp v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 327359, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a lower court must “strictly comply with” a higher court’s remand order.  Accordingly, when a lower court takes an action that goes beyond the mandate—even where there has been an intervening change in law—it has exceeded its mandate and must be reversed.

Mar 2016
09
March 09, 2016

COA refuses to review the validity of a child support order on appeal from the parent’s criminal conviction for failure to comply with it

Child support orders must be challenged in the proceeding in which they are entered, not in criminal proceedings to enforce them, according to the Court of Appeals decision in People v. Iannucci, No. 323604.  While the defendant admitted that he had failed to comply with the child support order, he argued that, as a disabled veteran, his veteran’s disability benefits should not have been considered as income for purposes of calculating child support and that such an inclusion was illegal and contrary to federal law.  The Court of Appeals held that these challenges to the validity of the underlying support order were not within the purview of the criminal proceeding, and thus, were not properly before the Court of Appeals in his appeal of his conviction in that proceeding.  Additionally, the Court held that denying defendant redress in criminal court simply because he did not obtain a favorable result in the underlying civil proceeding is not a denial of due process, and that his five-day jail sentence is not constitutionally unusual under the Eighth Amendment.

Dec 2015
24
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.

Oct 2015
15
October 15, 2015

COA: Order regarding grandparenting time is a final judgment and therefore appealable by right

In the consolidated appeal of Varran ex rel Varran  v. Granneman, Nos. 321866; 322437, on order from the Michigan Supreme Court, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether an order regarding grandparenting time affects custody of a child under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii), or is otherwise appealable by right under MCR 7.203(A).  The Court held that the order in this case was a “final judgment” under MCL 7.202(6)(a)(iii) and, therefore, appealable by right.  In turn, the Court took jurisdiction over the appeals and addressed the defendant’s claims, concluding that the lower court did not err in granting an order of grandparenting time.   

Displaying results 1-6 (of 113)
 |<  < 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