A governmental agency cannot be held civilly liable in circuit court for money damages for violations of the MISS DIG Act. The MISS DIG Act exception to governmental immunity under MCL 691.1407(7) is defined by the MISS DIG Act itself, and that Act provides only one avenue of relief that avoids governmental immunity: a complaint filed with the Public Service Commission under MCL 460.732.

A special panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that § 3116 of the No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3116) applies only to a no-fault insurer’s right of reimbursement from a claimant and “does not apply to an insurer’s tort recovery, as a subrogee, against a nonmotorist tortfeasor.”

An insurer was not entitled to a new trial based on unpreserved references to a third party’s drunkenness because the verdict was supported by the evidence and any prejudice was cured by jury instructions. The trial court also properly awarded no-fault attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1), as the insurer’s prior acknowledgment of the injury made its denial unreasonable, and a later record review could not create factual uncertainty retroactively.

The trial court plainly erred when it ordered respondent’s children removed from her care. Under MCR 3.974(C)(3)(a), the hearing held by the trial court was not an emergency removal hearing. Since the trial court did not follow the procedural requirements to remove the children from her care, the court violated respondent’s procedural due process rights.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiff stipulated to a dismissal in favor of arbitration without reserving the right to appeal prior orders and therefore, was not an aggrieved party.

An order holding an attorney in criminal contempt must be reversed, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, finding that the attorney’s due process rights were violated and there was insufficient evidence to support the charges.

The trial court abused its discretion when it ordered reformation of the insured’s no-fault policy instead of rescission, the Michigan Supreme Court has held in a unanimous decision.

The trial court properly terminated a mother’s parental rights where 1) the trial court correctly held the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act did not apply, and 2) termination was supported by the evidence and was in the child’s best interests, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court properly held that it was in the minor-child’s best interests to terminate the respondent-father’s parental rights, even though it “clearly erred” in finding that the child had a “lack of extended family support,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by requiring the parties to undergo psychological evaluations before filing future custody or parenting-time motions, because that requirement conflicts with the statutory framework set forth in MCL 722.27(1)(c).

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services violated the court rules in this termination of parental rights case when, at the father’s request, it did not produce video recordings of interviews conducted with his minor children, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

Attorneys, parties and subpoenaed witnesses cannot be subject to civil arrest while traveling to, attending or leaving court proceedings or performing related legal duties under a recent amendment to Michigan Court Rule 8.115.

‍ ‍

Under Michigan’s Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), a testamentary devise of categories of personal property — each prefaced with the word “my” and intended for a specific, named devisee — constitutes a specific devise rather than a general devise.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a Michigan defendant’s petition for habeas corpus, finding that his attorneys were effective at his criminal trial, even though they did not investigate an “acetaminophen-based defense” and did not call an expert witness.

In this boundary dispute between neighbors, the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard to the “hostility” element of adverse possession, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, thereby vacating the quiet title judgment that had been issued and remanding the case for further factual findings.

In this dispute over the division of the decedent’s financial accounts, the probate court properly placed a restriction on the funds that the respondent had received as a designated beneficiary on certain accounts, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

Under MCR 5.121(D)(2)(a), a probate court has an affirmative duty to afford all interested persons the opportunity to examine and controvert a guardian ad litem (GAL) report once it has been received into evidence—regardless of whether the interested person formally requests access and regardless of whether the report is designated as confidential.

In this no-fault insurance case, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ denial of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to the injured plaintiff, finding the appeals court misinterpreted the applicable no-fault statute and wrongly extended dicta from case precedent.