Skip to main content

September 2014

Sep 2014
25
September 25, 2014

COA: definite articles definitely matter when defining “plaintiff” under Michigan Court Rules

In Anne M. Hanton Trust v. Hantz Financial Services, Inc., No. 314889, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff is not barred from bringing a class action lawsuit by the time limits for class certification under MCR 3.501(B)(1) in a separate lawsuit in which the plaintiff was merely an unnamed putative class member.  Furthermore, because the class was not certified in the prior action, the 91-day clock for filing a motion for class certification never started running for Hanton.

Sep 2014
25
September 25, 2014

COA holds parking area on public road falls within the highway governmental immunity exception

In Yono v. Department of Transportation, No. 308698, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that an injury occurring in an area of a public road that is not primarily used as a thoroughfare may still fall within the highway avoidance exception to governmental immunity. Further, the Court held that a complaint alleged under this exception need not detail the exact location of the injury.

Sep 2014
25
September 25, 2014

COA holds that appointment of a juvenile guardian does not violate due process

In the case of In re Sturm, No. 316944, the Court of Appeals held that a mother’s parental rights were not terminated, nor her right to due process violated, when the trial court placed her daughter, TK, with a juvenile guardian under MCL 712.19a(7)(c). The mother opposed the guardianship, arguing that the trial court should have returned TK to her or continued with long-term foster care.

Sep 2014
25
September 25, 2014

COA holds that City must release video of police assault under FOIA

In Rataj v. City of Romulus, No. 315669, the Court of Appeals held that the City of Romulus must release video of a police assault on an individual and the related incident report because they are both public records that are not exempted under any provision of the Freedom of Information Act.  In August of 2012, a Romulus police officer assaulted a handcuffed arrestee who had spit on the officer and used a racial slur.  The assault was captured on video. 

Sep 2014
23
September 23, 2014

MSC to determine whether pre-Sanders decisions relying on defunct “one parent doctrine” may be collaterally attacked

Earlier this summer, in In re Sanders, No. 146680, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the “one-parent doctrine” is unconstitutional based on due process grounds. The one-parent doctrine allowed a trial court to terminate the rights of a parent who did not participate in adjudication, so long as the other parent participated.  The "one parent doctrine" had been a longstanding doctrine and many courts had relied on it, including the court in In re Farris, No. 311967.  The Supreme Court previously ordered the application for leave to appeal in Farris to be held in abeyance pending the Sanders outcome.
 
Significant to Farris, the Supreme Court in In re Hatcher, 505 N.W.2d 834 (1993), held that a parent’s collateral attack on the probate court’s assumption of subject matter jurisdiction was improper. There the Court reasoned that, although the court erroneously exercised its discretion in applying jurisdiction, it had general jurisdiction over the cause and parties. The Court further explained that a discretionary error such as the one made in Hatcher will not render an opinion void or subject to collateral attack unless formally set aside.  Now the question is, how many prior court decisions are open to question as a result of Sanders.

The Court has now granted leave in Farris, No. 147636, on the following issues:
 

(1)   whether and to what extent the collateral attack analysis in Hatcher extends to the due process issues disposed of by Sanders;
 
(2)   whether the Court of Appeals properly applied the plain error standard of review in light of Hatcher;
 
(3)   to the extent a collateral attack is permissible, whether the Court’s decision in Sanders applies retroactively to this case; and
 
(4) if so, what is the appropriate remedy.

Displaying results 7-12 (of 24)
 |<  <  1 - 2 - 3 - 4  >  >| 

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