The “American rule” does not necessarily bar a claim for attorney fees in an accounting malpractice action, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled in Merrifield v ATS Advisors, et al.

The Court of Appeals vacated the order terminating Respondents’ parental rights because the trial court plainly erred by excusing reasonable efforts toward reunification without a proper aggravated circumstances finding.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) only applies to invalidate arbitration provisions in contracts "evidencing a transaction involving commerce."

The Court unanimously overruled In re Estate of Schroeder, 335 Mich App 107 (2020), which had held that probate courts cannot consider Medicaid-related circumstances until after a formal eligibility determination is made.

In this case involving the suicide of a teenage resident at the Calumet Center, a Michigan-licensed child-caring institution, the trial court should not have granted summary disposition for the plaintiff-parents on the issue of comparative fault because it was a factual question for the jury, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the probate court acted within its discretion when it determined that the appellant’s litigation did not enhance, preserve, or protect trust property, provisions that MCL 700.7904(1) requires before awarding fees from the trust.

The Michigan Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a dispute over the title to funds in a decedent’s credit union account, ordering the parties in In re Sherrod Estate to address “what constitutes sufficient evidence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship.”

The no‑fault act permits an injured motorcyclist—or their medical provider—to continue down the statutory order of priority under MCL 500.3114(5) once a higher‑priority insurer's capped benefits have been exhausted.

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled for the first time that, while the 2021 Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) does constitute “punishment” for those who must register, it is not “cruel or unusual punishment” that violates the state or federal Constitutions.

When an electronically filed complaint is rejected by the clerk for a defect, the operative filing date is the date the corrected, accepted complaint is submitted — not the original rejected submission.

The plaintiff, who was injured when a goose attacked him on a hospital’s property, can pursue a premises liability claim against the hospital because the plaintiff alleged 1) the goose was a condition of the land whose dangerousness was known and 2) the hospital failed to warn him about the dangerous goose.

In this case involving parties who represented themselves at a custody hearing, the trial court wrongly precluded the plaintiff from introducing any evidence beyond her own testimony at the hearing, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

On the highway-by-user claim, the Court of Appeals held that Plaintiff-Appellants did have standing under Donaldson v Alcona Co Bd of Co Rd Comm’rs, 219 Mich App 718, 727 n 3; 558 NW2d 232 (1996) because they own property along the road and bear unique burdens if maintenance ceases.

The trial court wrongly ordered the minor child’s legal guardian to pay some of the respondent-mother’s attorney fees in this proceeding to terminate the respondent’s parental rights and adopt the child, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court in this termination of parental rights case wrongly held that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent-father, who was in federal prison, with his child, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has vacated an order placing a minor child under a juvenile guardianship because the trial court 1) did not put its best-interest findings on the record and 2) did not conduct a hearing before ordering the guardianship.

The prosecutor in a criminal sexual conduct trial “cross[ed] the line” when he stated during closing argument that victims “have the right to be believed,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in a published opinion.

State law requirements which impose different or additional requirements on pleadings filed in federal court are not enforceable if they conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even if the state law would qualify as “substantive law.” Thus a Delaware law which required the filing of an affidavit of merit with a medical malpractice complaint is not enforceable if a medical malpractice complaint is filed in federal court.