Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Dec 2016
December 22, 2016

COA: Trial court overstepped its authority in blocking state access to Legionella-related records from Flint area hospital

“An order restricting the flow of information to a state agency, or curtailing a state agency’s ability to fulfill its statutory mandate, cannot rest on catchy phrases or naked assertions devoid of factual support,” said the Michigan Court of Appeals in Department of Health & Human Services v. Genesee Circuit Judge, No. 334491.  In this action for superintending control, the Court of Appeals vacated three protective orders issued by Genesee Circuit Judge Geoffrey Neithercut, which prevented the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS” or “the Department”) from accessing McLaren-Flint Hospital’s medical records.

Dec 2016
December 13, 2016

MSC grants MOAA on whether the Court of Claims has subject matter jurisdiction over decisions by the Michigan Film Office

In the consolidated case of Teddy 23, LLC v Michigan Film Office, No. 153420, the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument to address whether the Revenue Act confers subject matter jurisdiction on the Court of Claims for decisions issued by the Michigan Film Office.  After the Michigan Film Office denied Teddy 23’s request for a postproduction certificate of completion because the Department of Treasury concluded that Teddy 23 had misstated its expenditures, Teddy 23 filed an action in the Court of Claims against the Michigan Film Office and the Department of Treasury.  The Court of Claims dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Revenue Act confers subject matter jurisdiction on the Court of Claims for decisions issued by the Department of Treasury, but not the Michigan Film Office. 

Nov 2016
November 07, 2016

What an en-tangled web we weave: MSC grants MOAA to consider the scope of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine

In Winkler v Marist Fathers of Detroit, Inc, No. 152889, the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument on whether a court entangles itself in religious doctrine by examining a parochial school’s basis for denying admission.  Bettina Winkler had sought admission to Notre Dame Preparatory High School after receiving repeated assurances that she would be guaranteed admission to the high school if she enrolled in Notre Dame Marist Academy for seventh and eighth grade.  Despite these assurances, however, Notre Dame Preparatory High School did not grant Winkler admission.  Only two months later, Winkler was diagnosed with learning disabilities. She subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination under the Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PWDCRA”), claiming that Notre Dame relied upon her learning disability as a justification for denying her admission to the high school.

Oct 2016
October 21, 2016

COA: Dismissal of lawsuit for PIP benefits because of discovery violations bars related claims for insurance benefits brought by service providers

In Kevin Dawoud v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co, Nos. 327915 and 327927, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant, State Farm, and dismissed the consolidated appeal by Grace Transportation Inc. and Utica Physical Therapy (“the service providers”), on the grounds that their derivative claims were barred as a result of the fact that the injured insured's claim against State Farm had been dismissed because of the insured's discovery violations.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 198)
 |<  < 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.



+ -