Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Sep 2017
25
September 25, 2017

MSC to consider whether playing on a beach is "outdoor recreational use" of land

In Otto v. Inn at Watervale, Inc., No. 155380, the Michigan Supreme Court has granted the Inn's application for leave to appeal the question of whether a child's play on the beach constituted “other outdoor recreational use” of the Inn's land under the Recreational Land Use Act, MCL 324.73301(1). 

Aug 2017
23
August 23, 2017

COA: Court order for physical transfer of a child from a parent constitutes removal triggering the protections of the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act

In In re Detmer/Beaudry, No. 336348, the Court considered the custody situation of a mother and two minor children that were eligible for membership in the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and thus subject to the protections of the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA).  In particular, the mother alleged that the children had been placed with the non-respondent father without trial court findings regarding remedial services or risk of harm, as required by the MIFPA.  During the pendancy of the appeal, the case became moot as the children were returned to the mother's custody.  Nevertheless, because the issue had public significance, was likely to recur, and would avoid judicial review because of the nature of temporary placements, the Court decided to rule on the case even though it was moot.  In doing so, the Court found that the MIFPA required particular findings from the trial court before a child could be "removed" from parental custody.  Although the MIFPA did not define the word "removed," and the Court concluded that a court order physically transferring placement of the child constitutes removal and triggers the MIFPA protections, but that a voluntary placement of a child is not a removal, and the protections do not apply in that situation.   

Jul 2017
27
July 27, 2017

COA: Cash value of life insurance policy is exempt from garnishment

In DC Mex Holdings LLC v. Affordable Land LLC, No. 332439, the plaintiff had secured a judgment against an individual defendant and had issued a writ of garnishment seeking to collect against the cash value of that individual's life insurance policy.  In analyzing the relevant statute governing whether these proceeds were exempt, the Court of Appeals noted that the statutory language and intent were designed to protect life insurance policies, including their cash value, for the beneficiary spouse and children.  Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that the cash value of the policy was exempt from garnishment.

Jul 2017
20
July 20, 2017

COA determines that public school employees are required to be deemed totally and permanently disabled by an independent medical advisor to receive disability benefits

In Escott v. Public School Employees’ Retirement Board, No. 333264, the Court of Appeals determined that the Public School Employees’ Retirement Board (“PSERB”) has no authority to grant non-duty disability retirement benefits to a public school employee unless and Independent Medical Advisor has deemed the employee totally and permanently disabled.

Jul 2017
19
July 19, 2017

COA: Schools Boards do not have to recall laid off teachers to fill job openings in different subject matter

In Southfield Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of Educ. of the Southfield Pub. Schools, No. 331087, the Court of Appeals determined that school boards reserve the right not to hire teachers who have been previously laid off and have high evaluation scores if they have not been evaluated for teaching the subject matter the job opening includes. Teachers with high effectiveness evaluation ratings who have been laid off are not obligated to be recalled by school boards for open positions if their evaluations are not for the subject matter of the position being advertised. However, the Court of Appeals has given the school boards the discretion to make such appointments if they deem it proper.

Jun 2017
30
June 30, 2017

MSC: Supreme Court “adds” extra day to statute of limitations period for medical malpractice actions

The Michigan Supreme Court, in Haksluoto v. Mt. Clemens Regional Medical Center, No. 153723, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that when a timely notice of intent (NOI) is filed, it preserves the day it was filed as one to be used after the required notice period of 182 days ends and the statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions resumes.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 331)
 |<  < 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