Skip to main content
A Better Partnership

December 2011

Dec 2011
December 14, 2011

COA Opinion: Cutting the padlock on a trailer is damage to the trailer, warranting enhanced sentence under MCL ' 750.356

In People v. Kloosterman, No. 301283, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's sentencing of defendant under MCL ' 750.356a(3), which imposes an enhanced sentence where damage is done to any part of a motor vehicle or trailer in the commission of a larceny under MCL ' 750.356a(2)(a) or (b). Defendant argued that the padlock securing

Dec 2011
December 13, 2011

MSC Order List: December 12, 2011

On December 12, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court released one order in the case of Lawrence v. Michigan Board of Law Examiners, No. 144191. In Lawrence, F. Lawrence filed an action asking the Michigan Supreme Court to implement superintending control power over the Board of Law examiners pursuant to MCR 7.304. Lawrence seeks review

Dec 2011
December 08, 2011

MSC Order List: December 7, 2011

On December 7, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court granted four applications for leave to appeal: In People v. Trakhtenberg, No. 143386, the parties shall address: (1) whether the "attorney judgment rule" can be applied under a collateral estoppel theory to bar substantive review of evidence to determine whether the defendant was denied effective assistance

Displaying results 7-12 (of 22)
 |<  <  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.



+ -