Skip to main content
A Better Partnership

February 2017

Feb 2017
08
February 08, 2017

MSC grants leave to appeal as to whether percentage allocation of premium contributions is a mandatory subject of bargaining

In Shelby Township v Command Officers Association of Michigan, No 323491, the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address bargaining requirements related to public employees’ contributions to medical benefit plans pursuant to the Publicly Funded Health Insurance Contribution Act and the Public Employment Relations Act. The Publicly Funded Health Insurance Contribution Act, MCL 15.561 et seq., limits how much public employers may pay toward healthcare costs for employee medical benefit plans.  

Feb 2017
06
February 06, 2017

MSC grants second MOAA on whether an order denying a motion to change schools is a postjudgment order affecting the custody of a minor

In Ozimek v Rodgers, No. 154776, the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument as to whether an order denying the plaintiff mother’s motion to change the school was “a postjudgment order affecting the custody of a minor” and therefore a “final order” under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii). 

Feb 2017
06
February 06, 2017

Police officer’s reassignment to dangerous part of Flint was sufficient to plead a retaliatory action under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, says the MSC

In Smith v. City of Flint, No. 152844, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a police officer’s reassignment to an undesirable location in Flint during undesirable hours was sufficient to establish a question of fact as to whether the police officer suffered an adverse employment action.  In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, which held that, in concluding whether a retaliatory action under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (“WPA”) was committed, an adverse employment action must be shown to be more than a mere inconvenience.  The Michigan Supreme Court instead agreed with the dissenting opinion, finding that a police officer has properly pleaded an adverse employment action where he is the only patrol officer assigned exclusively to a particularly dangerous section of the department’s jurisdiction.

Feb 2017
06
February 06, 2017

MSC grants MOAA on whether a court’s postjudgment order denying request to change child’s school enrollment is an order affecting the custody of a minor

In Marik v. Marik, No. 154549, the Michigan Supreme Court has granted mini-oral argument to address 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).  The defendant father in the underlying domestic relations action filed a postjudgment order, seeking to modify parenting time and the parties’ minor child’s school enrollment.  After the circuit court denied the defendant’s motion, the father appealed the court’s decision.  On July 12, 2016, the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the circuit court’s postjudgment order did not affect the custody of the parties’ minor child within the meaning of MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii). 

Feb 2017
03
February 03, 2017

MSC to hear MOAA on whether “intent to threaten” matters when threat made witness “unavailable”

It’s the thought that counts—or, for the Michigan Supreme Court, the intent. The court has ordered an MOAA to hear arguments on whether intent matters in an evidence dispute over an unavailable witness. In People v. Lopez, No. 327208, the Court of Appeals found that the prosecutor threatened the defendant’s key witness. The prosecutor in that case told the witness that giving testimony during trial that differed from previous sworn testimony would result in a charge of perjury and life imprisonment. So, a week before trial, the witness invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege, saying he was no longer willing to testify. The prosecutor then filed a motion to declare Hoskins “unavailable” as a witness and to admit his prior testimony pursuant to MRE 804(b)(1).
 
 

Displaying results 7-12 (of 14)
 |<  <  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