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 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 Michigan Supreme Court will not hear the case of two law professors who sued Michigan State University, claiming the school breached their employment contracts and fraudulently concealed a transfer agreement it had negotiated with the Detroit College of Law.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s order, holding that MCR 2.612 applies in adoption proceedings. Further, the Trial Court properly vacated its order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a) because the court made a material mistake of fact when it entered the original termination order.

The Michigan Supreme Court recently denied leave to appeal in a parenting-time case – with one justice issuing her own concurrence, explaining how the trial court “failed to comply” with the Child Custody Act.

An attorney who submits filings containing fabricated or unsupported legal authority—including hallucinated citations generated by artificial intelligence—violates the duty of reasonable inquiry under MCR 1.109(E)(5), and such conduct on appeal supports sanctions under MCR 7.216(C)(1).

A special panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that § 3116 of the No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3116) applies only to a no-fault insurer’s right of reimbursement from a claimant and “does not apply to an insurer’s tort recovery, as a subrogee, against a nonmotorist tortfeasor.”

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.