The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s opinion and order, finding no abuse of discretion.

Contaminated groundwater is an "environmental hazard" under the seller disclosure act, even if there is no known contamination of the soil or vapor intrusion in the home. The court reversed the trial court's decision, which had granted summary disposition in favor of the Defendant-Appellees, on the basis that there was no "environmental hazard" to disclose.  

Summary disposition was not warranted where there were factual disputes about whether a truck’s turn signals were operating at the time of the accident. Further, sanctions for spoliation of evidence must be supported by findings at the trial court that the evidence at issue was material and that the party had a duty to preserve the evidence before a lawsuit was filed.

The city of Detroit was not entitled to summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity after the Court determined that a metal stub protruding out of a paved sidewalk constituted a “sidewalk defect” and created “a dangerous condition”. . The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded to the trial court.

The Michigan Supreme Court has reversed a ruling that allowed a negligence suit to proceed against a ski resort because, contrary to the Michigan Court of Appeals decision in the case, the release signed by the injured party was not ambiguous.

Judicial estoppel barred Plaintiff-Appellant's claims that depended on an ownership interest in the property, as she had previously denied such an interest in her bankruptcy petition. However, judicial estoppel did not preclude her claim for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit.

The trial court in this divorce case erroneously disregarded the parties’ valid and enforceable prenuptial agreement before dividing their marital property due to perceived inequities, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

Because the trial court was not permitted to exercise jurisdiction over respondent-father due to his status as a putative father at the time the petition was filed, it was barred from determining that it was in the best interests of CSA to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled the Oakland County trial court improperly granted an ex-husband’s motion to “clarify” the parties’ judgment of divorce because, in doing so, the trial court actually modified the judgment, thereby affecting the parties’ substantive rights.

The Michigan Supreme Court will not decide a dispute over a divorced couple’s cryogenically frozen embryo, saying it was “not persuaded” the justices should review the issues presented.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant summary disposition in favor of Defendants, an attorney and his law firm.  The Court reasoned that Defendants were immune from tort liability when speaking to the State Bar of Michigan’s character-and-fitness committee regarding Plaintiff, a law school graduate, even if their statements could have been false or misleading.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order terminating Respondent's parental rights to minor child GM. The Court reasoned that Petitioner, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), failed to create and implement a case service plan for Respondent as required by MCL 712A.18f.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to terminate the respondent’s parental rights because he failed to assert the child’s Native American or tribal affiliation to the Trial Court and failed to demonstrate that he would be able to rectify his substance-use barrier in a reasonable time considering the child’s age.

The right to “address” a public body under the Open Meetings Act can be satisfied through both oral and written submissions, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

When a parent challenges the validity of a release of parental rights on the ground that it was not made knowingly or voluntarily, the parent alleges a concrete injury arising from the trial court’s order and qualifies as an aggrieved party for purposes of appellate jurisdiction.

In this case involving contaminated doses of an antiviral medication, the defendants were immune from liability under the federal Public Readiness and Preparedness Act because they did not engage in “willful misconduct” by manufacturing or administering the contaminated drug to the plaintiffs, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.