Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Jun 2017
12
June 12, 2017

MSC grants mini-oral argument to clarify the retroactive application of Executive Order 225 to retiree benefit contributions

The Michigan Supreme Court is not quite done with its analysis of the retroactivity of Order 225.  The Court again granted mini-oral argument in Board of Trustees of the City of Pontiac v. City of Pontiac, No. 154745, to address whether (1) the Court of Appeals correctly applied the findings in LaFontaine Saline, Inc. v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 496 Mich 26 (2014) to Order 225; (2) whether LaFontaine prohibited the retroactive application of Order 225 to the trust; and (3) if LaFontaine does not apply, whether Order 225’s retroactive modification of the 2011-2012 fiscal contribution to the trust is impermissible under the Michigan constitution.  This decision could have an impact on the application of Order 225 retroactively to a wide-range of obligations and claims.
 

May 2017
25
May 25, 2017

COA: If a fire truck has to try to drive safely—then so does a snowplow. There is no immunity from negligence claims while working on roadways

In Flanagin v. Kalkaska Co Road Comm'n, No. 330887, the Court of Appeals held that statutory provisions that allowed state vehicles to cross the centerline while engaged in work on a roadway would not provide immunity against allegations of negligence. While a snowplow may not be committing a moving violation when plowing by being over the centerline, they can still be negligent. The facts at issue indicated it was possible that the snowplow was between four and six feet over the centerline, and thus there was a genuine issue of material fact as to alleged negligent conduct justifying the trial court's denial of summary disposition.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 150)
 |<  < 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