Skip to main content
A Better Partnership

January 2012

Jan 2012
January 25, 2012

COA Opinion: Court can order criminal defendant to pay restitution to business based upon time that business spent investigating misconduct

On January 24th, the Court of Appeals approved its November 2011 decision in People v. Allen, No. 299267 for publication. In that case the Court was reviewing the trial court's order for the payment of victim restitution to Blue Cross Blue Shield. The defendant had been convicted of attempting to commit prescription fraud using a valid Blue Cross c

Jan 2012
January 24, 2012

COA Opinion: Warning about use of PPO as a 'sword instead of a shield' has extremely narrow application

In People v. Kabanuk, No. 301536, the defendant was convicted of criminal contempt for violating a personal protection order (PPO) when she lunged toward the PPO complainant in a courthouse and said, 'I hate you,' among other things. Citing People v. Freeman, 240 Mich. App. 235 (2000), the defendant claimed that the complainant was using the PPO as a 'swor

Jan 2012
January 24, 2012

MSC Order List: January 23, 2012

On Monday, January 23, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a statement regarding the motion for disqualification of Justice Markman in Lawrence v. Board of Examiners, Case No. 144191. In his statement, Justice Markman explains that Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to disqualify the Justice because he: 1) introduced opposing counsel as

Jan 2012
January 23, 2012

COA Opinion: Income obtained from separate legal entities may not be treated as income from a unitary business under Michigan Income Tax Act

On January 19, 2012, the Michigan Court of Appeals published its December 6, 2011 opinion in Malpass v. Department of Treasury, Nos. 299057-059, in which the court concluded that the plaintiffs could not treat income from two separate S corporations as income from a unitary business. In this case, the plaintiffs filed amended tax returns, in which they applied appo

Jan 2012
January 21, 2012

COA Opinion: Dissolved corporations are not entitled to notice

On January 19, 2012, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Woodbury v. Res-Care Premier, Inc., No. 297819. Defendant Res-Care Premier, Inc. contracted to purchase a home from Defendant Ruth Averill in 2009. The homeowners in Averill's subdivision had entered into an agreement that required homeowners to offer the homeowners' association, Plaint

Displaying results 1-6 (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.



+ -