The affidavits in this case were deficient in showing a mistaken belief of fact by the plaintiff and failing to address the due diligence requirement in uncovering the newly discovered evidence, the Trial Court erred in failing to dismiss the case.

In addition to improperly granting summary disposition, the Trial Court legally erred in finding that the objection to sharing of referral fees under MRPC 1.5(e) was timely.

The Michigan Supreme Court’s recent decisions in previous cases operates retroactively and applies to all cases currently pending on direct appeal.

The trial court gave a Georgia custody order proper effect by granting the parties joint legal custody while omitting the order’s tie-breaking authority provision.

The MI Supreme Court issued an opinion stating the no-fault auto reform law cannot apply to crash survivors who bought policies and were injured before the new law took effect..

Reasonable attorney fees shall be awarded where a party substantially prevails in obtaining everything that was initially sought in a FOIA action, and pro bono representation is not a factor.

Under the equitable parent doctrine, a would-be equitable parent of a child born or adopted in same-sex marriage may seek custody and parent time.

The Restriction Agreement, which established specific terms for the signing parties to exercise a purchase option at the other parties’ death, was not an illegal restraint on alienation.

The trial court erred in granting the respondent a directed verdict during a child protective proceeding bench trial because the court rules limit directed verdicts to jury trials

ICWA also does not violate the Tenth Amendment’s anticommandeering doctrine. ICWA’s “active efforts” and “diligent search” requirements apply equally to state and private actors.

DHHS’s petition to terminate parental rights was declined because the petition did not establish probable cause that the father posed a substantial risk of harm to the children’s mental well-being.

A father’s right to control the custody and care of his child must yield, to the state’s interest in preventing upheaval for the child who had been in care with the same foster family for nearly 2 years.

The trial court improperly relied on the consequences of a parent’s voluntary change of custody as being sufficient to constitute proper cause or a change of circumstances to order a change of custody.

The trial court committed clear legal error by failing to hold a live hearing where the plaintiff would have the right to present evidence, subject to certain restrictions permitted by the court rules.

Defendant’s motion to change domicile to a foreign county would alter the established custodial environment with one parent and is not in the best interests of the child.

The case involves the grave risk of physical harm exception to a child’s wrongful removal from their country of habitual residence.