Skip to main content

June 2013

Jun 2013
24
June 24, 2013

MSC orders mini-oral argument on whether property owner may be liable for nuisance created by brother in possession of property

The Michigan Supreme Court will hold oral argument to consider the application for leave to appeal in In re Estate of Sholberg. Sholberg concerns whether, and under what circumstances, a property owner who is not in possession of the property and does not participate in the conduct creating an alleged nuisance may be liable for the

Jun 2013
24
June 24, 2013

MSC denies worker's comp for injury at work-site parking lot owned by third-party

On Friday, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded Mohney v. American International Group to the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission ('MCAC'). The MCAC was instructed to enter an order denying plaintiff's claim for worker's compensation benefits. The Court

Jun 2013
21
June 21, 2013

MSC says no immunity for patient-to-patient transfers of medical marijuana

Reaffirming its decision in Michigan v. McQueen (blogged here), the Michigan Supreme Court held once again in People v. Green that transfers of medical marijuana from one registered medical marijuana user to another are not protected under the Medical Marijuana Act. The

Jun 2013
21
June 21, 2013

MSC holds governmental immunity stretches to all tasks within an agency leader's power

In Petipren v. Jaskowski, the Michigan Supreme Court held that an official's 'executive authority,' and the absolute governmental immunity that comes with it, encompass tasks that a lower-level employee may also perform. Accordingly, the defendant Police Chief was protected by governmental immunity even when he performed an ordinary arrest. Thi

Jun 2013
21
June 21, 2013

COA holds that petitioner may use the statutory grounds for personal representative's removal to contest appointment

In Stan v. Stan (In re Estate of Stan), the Court of Appeals considered whether a beneficiary's challenge to the appointment of a named personal representative triggered an in terrorem clause. By statute, in terrorem clauses are not enforceable where the challenger has 'probable cause' to challenge a provision in the will. Here, the Cou

Displaying results 7-12 (of 31)
 |<  <  1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6  >  >| 

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