Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Nov 2017
November 28, 2017

MSC overrules COA decision holding a motion to change schools is not an order affecting the custody of a minor

After hearing mini-oral argument in Marik v. Marik, No. 154549, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ order and remanded to the trial court to reconsider whether a court’s postjudgment order denying a party’s request to change a minor child’s school enrollment is a “postjudgment order affecting the custody of a minor” and therefore a “final order” under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii).  We previously blogged about Marik here

Sep 2016
September 23, 2016

COA holds that insured party does not need legal interest in insured property to be indemnified

In A.B. Petro Mart, Inc. v. Prime One Insurance, No. 327481, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that under the insurable-interest doctrine, an insured party is not required to have a legal interest in or financial responsibility for any damages to the insured property in order to be indemnified under an aleatory indemnity contract.

Sep 2016
September 12, 2016

COA holds that where public body did not regularly violate the Open Meetings Act, there is no cause for injunctive relief

In Citizens for a Better Algonac Community Schools v. Algonac Community Schools, No. 326583, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs had no cause of action under the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) because there was no ongoing violation of the OMA.  Therefore, plaintiffs were not entitled to the injunctive relief they sought.

Nov 2015
November 23, 2015

COA: In light of Obergefell, Equitable Parent Doctrine no longer limited to the confines of marriage as previously defined by Michigan Constitution and statutory law

In Stankevich v. Milliron, No. 310710, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), requires that Michigan recognize same sex marriage and therefore the Equitable Parent Doctrine extends to persons in same-sex marriages.  In so holding, the Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiff had standing to seek the status of an equitable parent.

Oct 2015
October 12, 2015

COA determines that a member of the public lacks standing because the statute provides no legal cause of action for the public

In White v. Highland Park Election Commission, No. 329222, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge MCL 168.674(2), an election statute, because her legal cause of action was no different than any other member of the public.  The statute requires appointment of at least one election inspector from each major party.  The Commission did not appoint any Republican inspectors.  Plaintiff brought suit.  The trial court determined:  1) the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the political party composition because the statute designated that right to the county chairs of major political parties; and 2) the defendants did not violate MCL 168.674(2) because no Republican representatives applied to be an election inspector.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 24)
 |<  < 1 - 2 - 3 - 4  >  >| 

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.



+ -