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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.