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.

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 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 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.

A petitioner’s release from the sex offender registry requirements in Iowa does not necessitate that he also be relieved of his Michigan sex offender registry requirements, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

A divided Michigan Court of Appeals has affirmed the termination of a mother’s parental rights, with one appellate judge saying the termination order should be reversed because the trial court “clearly erred” in finding that termination was in the children’s best interests.

A violation of the law for the purposes of the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act is not limited to statutory enactments but may also include violations of common law.

The Michigan Court of Appeals, in a custody case on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, has ruled that a portion of its original opinion “erroneously instructed the trial court to apply MCL 722.31 to determine the child’s domicile.”

The trial court’s finding that the termination of the respondents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interests must be “conditionally reverse[d],” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, because the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) failed to comply with its statutory duty to investigate relative placements.