Skip to main content
A Better Partnership

December 2013

Dec 2013
19
December 19, 2013

Divorce court has jurisdiction to order a lien for attorney fees against divorce proceeds

In Souden v. Souden, the Court of Appeals held that the divorce court that presided over a divorce had subject matter jurisdiction to grant a divorce attorney’s petition for payment of attorney fees out of his client’s share of the divorce proceeds, even if the fees amounted to less than $25,000. 

Dec 2013
19
December 19, 2013

COA finds another "use" for wine besides drinking it

In Aroma Wines and Equipment, Inc. v. Columbia Distribution Services, Inc. the Court of Appeals held that a reasonable jury could find that the defendant "used" the plaintiffs' wine in removing it from storage and holding it hostage.

Dec 2013
13
December 13, 2013

COA rules that judicial fact-finding which set guideline score but did not change statutory minimum and/or maximum penalty did not violate Alleyne v. United States

In People v Herron, the Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that utilizing judicial fact-finding and the Michigan’s sentencing guidelines to determine an appropriate sentence within the maximum determined by statute and the jury’s verdict is not contrary to the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alleyne v United States.

Dec 2013
13
December 13, 2013

Service providers were "professional employer organizations" where they retained right to direct, control, hire and fire employees

In Adamo Demolition Company v. Department of Treasury, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the Michigan Tax Tribunal was correct in finding that two human resource service providers were professional employer organizations under MCL 208.4(4).

Dec 2013
13
December 13, 2013

Insurance company’s burden of proof on affirmative defenses was a preponderance of the evidence.

In Stein v Home-Owners Insurance Co, the trial court erroneously required an insurance company to prove its affirmative defenses of fraud and arson by “clear and convincing” evidence rather than a “preponderance of the evidence.” 

Displaying results 7-12 (of 17)
 |<  <  1 - 2 - 3  >  >| 

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