Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

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.

Jul 2016
July 01, 2016

COA: Regardless of a showing of actual knowledge, failure to follow the directions of Revenue Bonding Act or its municipal equivalent will not prevent utility liens from arising on a subject property

In Sau-Tuk Industries, Incorporated v. Allegan County, No. 325926, the Court of Appeals held that even where a municipality had actual knowledge that a tenant, not the land owner, was responsible for payment of utility charges on a certain property, failure to follow the clear and unambiguous notice directions of the Revenue Bonding Act (“RBA”), in particular MCL 141.121(3), does not prevent a utility lien from arising on the property. 

Displaying results 1-6 (of 52)
 |<  < 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9  >  >| 

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.



+ -