Skip to main content
A Better Partnership

October 2015

Oct 2015
20
October 20, 2015

MSC remand regarding Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association and FOIA

In Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association, No. 150001, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion holding that MCL 500.134(4)—which provides a statutory exemption to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)—does not violate Article 4, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution.  The Court stated that the Court of Appeals had improperly reached this conclusion because it assumed, without analysis, that the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association is a “public body” subject to FOIA.  Accordingly, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration of this issue and, in light of its resolution of the issue, reconsideration of whether MCL 500.134(4) violates the Michigan Constitution.

Oct 2015
19
October 19, 2015

COA: Co-owner of condominium unit is not a tenant of common areas of development, nor is he a licensee or invitee for premises liability purposes

In Francescutti v. Fox Chase Condominium Association and Association Management, Inc., No. 323111, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a co-owner of a condominium unit is not a tenant of the common areas of a development, nor is he a licensee or invitee for purposes of a premises-liability action.  In light of its holding, the Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of the defendant’s motion for summary disposition.

Oct 2015
19
October 19, 2015

COA: Registration as a sex offender is not “punishment”

In People v. Tucker, No. 322151, the defendant appealed his no contest plea convictions of felonious assault, MCL 750.82, and domestic violence, MCL 750.81(2).  Defendant’s conviction required him to, inter alia, register as a sex offender under the “recapture” provision of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.723(1)(e), in which an individual who did not have to register previously under SORA must register thereafter if the individual is convicted of any other felony after the effective date.  The Michigan Court of Appeals held that this registration requirement does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because it does not increase the punishment for the defendant’s prior crime.  Furthermore, the Court held that the registration requirement does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment because registration as a sex offender is not “punishment.”

Oct 2015
16
October 16, 2015

MSC: Consecutive sentence requires trial court to find that the two offenses arose from the same transaction

In People v. Cummings, No. 150116, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals because the sentencing judge “failed to identify any evidence from which one could conclude that the imposition of consecutive sentences was warranted.” While MCL 750.520b(3) permits a judge to make consecutive sentences for first-degree criminal sexual conduct and another criminal offense, the Court held that the sentencing judge must provide a basis for its determination that the two criminal offenses arose from the same transaction. If no such conclusion can be made, the sentencing judge must resentence the defendant. The Court remanded the case to the Kent Circuit Court to either state its conclusion regarding to similarities between the two offenses or to resentence the defendant. The Court denied leave to appeal the remaining questions presented in the application.

Oct 2015
15
October 15, 2015

COA: Where larceny is predicate offense to second-degree home invasion charge, trial court must not instruct on lesser-included offense of third-degree home invasion

In People v. Jackson, No. 322350, the Michigan Court of Appeals held, in dicta, that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on both the charged offense, second-degree home invasion, and the lesser included offense of third-degree home invasion.  The court noted that misdemeanor or felony larceny may serve as the predicate offense for second-degree home invasion and third degree home invasion. In this case, however, because there was no evidence of any predicate act other than larceny, the evidence did not support a distinction between the two charges, and the instruction for third-degree home invasion (the lesser included offense) should not have been read.  However, because the defendant was convicted of second-degree home invasion—the proper charge as the underlying offense was a larceny—the court held that the instruction did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.   

Oct 2015
15
October 15, 2015

COA: Where larceny is predicate offense to second-degree home invasion charge, trial court must not instruct on lesser-included offense of third-degree home invasion

In People v. Jackson, No. 322350, the Michigan Court of Appeals held, in dicta, that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on both the charged offense, second-degree home invasion, and the lesser included offense of third-degree home invasion.  The court noted that misdemeanor or felony larceny may serve as the predicate offense for second-degree home invasion and third degree home invasion. In this case, however, because there was no evidence of any predicate act other than larceny, the evidence did not support a distinction between the two charges, and the instruction for third-degree home invasion (the lesser included offense) should not have been read.  However, because the defendant was convicted of second-degree home invasion—the proper charge as the underlying offense was a larceny—the court held that the instruction did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.   

Displaying results 13-18 (of 32)
 |<  <  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