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.

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.

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.

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.