Skip to main content
A Better Partnership

June 2016

Jun 2016
June 16, 2016

COA: A previous owner of property cannot file an affidavit that the property was qualified agricultural property for tax purposes

The Court of Appeals held in Lyle Schmidt Farms LLC v. Township of Mendon, Nos. 326609, 326611, 327909, 327916, that only a current owner of the property can file an affidavit pursuant to MCL 211.7dd(d) to ensure that the property remains capped for agricultural property tax purposes.

Jun 2016
June 15, 2016

COA holds that members of the Parole and Commutation Board do not have vested contractual rights to hold their positions

In Aguirre v. Dep't of Corrections, No. 327022, the Court of Appeals held that appointments to public office do not create a contractual right to hold that office, and when an office is abolished, or an officer lawfully removed, he or she is not entitled to payment for future services which would have been rendered but for the elimination of the office.

Jun 2016
June 15, 2016

COA holds that the insurers are not required to pay no-fault benefits to innocent third parties if the insured obtained automobile insurance coverage through fraud

In Bazzi v Genex, No. 320518 the Court of Appeals held that the “innocent third-party rule” abolished by the Michigan Supreme Court in Titan v Hyten, 491 Mich 547; 817 NW2d 562 (2012) for contractual insurance policies was also abolished with respect to statutory no-fault insurance. For the parties in Bazzi, this means that if an insured obtains coverage through fraud, the insurer is not obligated to pay no-fault benefits to an innocent third-party.

Jun 2016
June 15, 2016

COA: No premises liability unless defendant has possession and control of the property

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that an individual may not recover from a defendant who does not owe a legal duty in Morelli v Madison Heights, Docket No. 326621.  The Court affirmed the decision in Morrow v Boldt, 203 Mich App 324, 328; 512 NW2d 83 (1994), that a plaintiff may only receive damages from a defendant for injuries from conditions of land if that defendant has legal possession and control of the premises.

Jun 2016
June 14, 2016

MSC grants oral argument to consider the applicability of a Michigan Civil Rights Act case to a Whistleblower Protection Act claim

In Smith v. City of Flint, No. 152844 the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument to be accompanied by supplemental briefs on the application for leave to appeal to consider three issues. First, whether the Court of Appeals (COA) erred in applying Peña v Ingham Co. Rd Comm., 255 Mich App 299 (2003), a Michigan Civil Rights Act case, to the plaintiff’s claim under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361. Secondly, whether the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish that he suffered an adverse employment action under the WPA.  Finally. if the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish that he engaged in a protected activity under the WPA. The COA, which we blogged about here, held that the adverse action against the employee must be more than a mere inconvenience, and Smith’s relocation was within the discretion of the employer and was part of Smith’s job duties. The COA also held that Smith was not engaged in a protected activity because his mere disagreement with the use of funds did not mean that the city engaged in wrongful conduct.    

Displaying results 19-24 (of 36)
 |<  <  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.



+ -