Skip to main content
A Better Partnership
April 10, 2009

MSC Order List: April 8, 2009

On April 8, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal in three cases, entered miscellaneous orders in two cases, and took substantive action in one civil and one criminal case. The Court's order in In re Hudson is addressed in a separate post.

In People v. Trostle, the Court ordered the Kent County Prosecuting Attorney to respond to the defendant's application for leave to appeal within 28 days. The Court directed the Kent County Prosecuting Attorney to address Defendant's contention that his sentence constitutes an unjustified upward departure from the applicable sentencing guideline range. The Court's order is here.

In Roberts v. Safewell, the Court granted oral argument on the issue of whether to grant the application for leave to appeal or to take other preemptory action. At the mini oral argument, the Court directed the parties to address the following: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that innocent misrepresentation is not a viable theory of liability under the Seller Disclosure Act; (2) if not, whether the plaintiffs could proceed with their claim to the extent the issue of whether the defendants knew of the termite infestation and intentionally withheld this knowledge was presented to the jury; (3) whether the defendants failed to preserve the argument that a claim for innocent misrepresentation cannot legally be maintained under the SDA by failing to expressly present it at the Court of Appeals; and (4) if so, whether this failure to preserve the issue acted as a waiver of this defense or merely as a bar from the Court of Appeals considering the issue. The Court's order can be found here.

In People v. O'Non, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals as on leave granted to determine whether the transcript of the defendant's testimony at his own trial was testimonial under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), whether any of the statements were hearsay under MRE 801(c), and whether all statements in the transcript that were offered to prove falsity of the matters asserted necessarily were not hearsay under MRE 801(c) and were not barred by Crawford. The Court's order is here.

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.



+ -