Skip to main content
A Better Partnership

May 2013

May 2013
23
May 23, 2013

COA holds that a witness's prior theft conviction is not of significant probative value for purposes of impeachment

In Michigan v. Snyder, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a prior theft conviction is inadmissible at trial for purposes of impeachment because a theft conviction typically fails to meet the requirements for admissibility under the Michigan Rules of Evidence (MRE) 609. MRE 609 provides that a witness's prior theft conviction may be admitted at

May 2013
23
May 23, 2013

COA holds that property owners do not waive interest on a condemnation award by possessing a portion of property

In Lewanee Co v Wagley, the Court of Appeals held that interest on a condemnation award was properly determined by calculating it from the time that the county took possession of an 'avigation' easement, because the property owners did not have to be deprived of the entirety of their property in order for interest to begin accruing. An 'avigation' e

May 2013
16
May 16, 2013

COA holds that trial court can award triple restitution for loss of an eye under the Crime Victim Right's Act

In People v Lloyd, the Court of Appeals affirmed an award for three times the actual amount of restitution under the Crime Victim's Civil Rights Act when the defendant caused the victim to lose an eye because the injury was a 'serious impairment of body function' under the statute. The Crime Victim's Rights Act, MCL 780.766(5), provides that a perso

May 2013
10
May 10, 2013

COA Opinion: Wayne County's ordinance moving inflation-protection dollars into general retirement fund violates the Public Employee Retirement System Investment Act

In Wayne County Employees Retirement System v. Charter County of Wayne, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that Wayne County's ordinance, which re-directed funds meant to protect retirees from inflation to offset the County's annual required contribution to the retirement system, violated the Public Employee Retirement System Investment Act ("PERSIA"), MCL 38.1132.

May 2013
10
May 10, 2013

COA: Preponderance of the evidence is the standard for child's best interest determination in termination proceedings

In In re Moss Minors, the Court of Appeals held that a court must determine whether termination of parental rights is in a child's best interest by a preponderance of the evidence. After hearing evidence of the respondent mother's substance abuse, mental illness, thoughts of harming her children, and lack of suitable housing, the trial court terminated h

Displaying results 19-24 (of 29)
 |<  <  1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5  >  >| 

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