A houseguest who secretly placed recording devices in the host’s home did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the storage cards that the devices contained, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. 

When a vehicle’s owner neither expressly permitted nor expressly prohibited the claimant from taking the vehicle, whether the vehicle was “taken unlawfully” under MCL 500.3113(a) depends on whether the driver took it with the owner’s implied permission. That determination turns on all the facts and circumstances surrounding the taking, as well as the driver’s previous use of the vehicle.

In this case involving the ordered euthanasia of an alleged “dangerous” dog, the trial court’s decision was erroneous because it failed to properly apply an “objective reasonable-person standard,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in a published and binding opinion.

When determining whether a Michigan Consumer Protection Act claim falls under the exemption in MCL 445.904(1)(a), courts “should consider whether the specific transaction or conduct at issue, rather than the general transaction, is authorized by law.”

The Michigan Court of Appeals has vacated a trial court’s order terminating the parental rights of an incarcerated father, finding that the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services made no reasonable efforts toward reunification.

A mother who pleaded no contest in a termination of parental rights case did not waive or abandon her ability to challenge whether the Department of Health and Human Services made reasonable reunification efforts, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled.

The trial court properly granted a criminal defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made to police after he invoked his right to counsel, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled.

The Michigan Court of Appeals incorrectly held that a trial court had to consider the factors in Dean v Tucker when assessing a party’s motion to amend its witness list, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled in a unanimous decision.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court order terminating parental rights that was based primarily on the doctrine of anticipatory neglect because the evidence did not demonstrate that the child at issue was subject to the same risk of harm as the other child who had been abused by the parent 8 years prior and under very different circumstances.

A trial court’s postjudgment order awarding attorney fees under MCR 3.206 for the defendant’s alleged noncompliance with an order in her divorce case “constitutes a form of compensatory civil contempt” and “is not a final order appealable of right,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, dismissing the defendant’s appeal.

A healthcare provider that treats an injured person for an accidental bodily injury is not entitled to recover no-fault personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under MCL 500.3112 when the injured person is an "owner" of an uninsured motor vehicle under MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i) and therefore ineligible to receive PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(b).

The trial court in this step-parent adoption case correctly held that the statutory requirements were established for terminating the respondent-father’s parental rights, thereby allowing the petitioners’ adoption petition to proceed, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

A claim under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) constitutes a "claim for personal injuries" under MCL 600.6431(4) of the Court of Claims Act (COCA), triggering a six-month notice requirement rather than the one-year general notice requirement of MCL 600.6431(1).

MCL 600.5852, the wrongful-death saving provision that gives a personal representative extra time to file suit after the general period of limitations has run, itself creates a limitations period and is therefore subject to the tolling mechanism of MCL 600.5856(c) during the 182-day medical-malpractice notice period.

The trial court properly denied the plaintiff-father’s request for joint legal custody because his allegations did not meet the threshold requirement established by Vodvarka v Grasmeyer to allow further inquiry into whether the prior custody order should be modified.

A custody order does not determine a child’s domicile for purposes of the no-fault act. As the domicile rule set forth in Grange Ins Co of Mich v Lawrence, 494 Mich 475 (2013) requires courts to treat child custody orders as dispositive of the question of domicile, Grange is overruled.

A unanimous Michigan Supreme Court has ruled in People v Shaver that its 2021 decision in People v Betts applies retroactively, thereby giving certain convicted sex offenders the opportunity to have their adjudications reviewed.

The trial court erred when making its decision upon a mistaken belief that, under the undisputed factual circumstances, it lacked discretion to empanel a jury. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded their decision for proceedings consistent with their opinion that a trial court retains discretion to empanel a jury even when parties fail to properly preserve their constitutional right to a jury trial.