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.

In this case involving parties who represented themselves at a custody hearing, the trial court wrongly precluded the plaintiff from introducing any evidence beyond her own testimony at the hearing, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court wrongly ordered the minor child’s legal guardian to pay some of the respondent-mother’s attorney fees in this proceeding to terminate the respondent’s parental rights and adopt the child, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court in this termination of parental rights case wrongly held that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent-father, who was in federal prison, with his child, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has vacated an order placing a minor child under a juvenile guardianship because the trial court 1) did not put its best-interest findings on the record and 2) did not conduct a hearing before ordering the guardianship.

The prosecutor in a criminal sexual conduct trial “cross[ed] the line” when he stated during closing argument that victims “have the right to be believed,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in a published opinion.

Separate from the Court’s consideration of Appellant-Father's arguments on appeal, the panel engaged in a discussion regarding published Court of Appeals decisions issued prior to November 1, 1990, specifically focusing on Fisher v Fisher, 118 Mich App 227; 324 NW2d 582 (1982).

An order imposing compensatory civil contempt sanctions is not a “final order” appealable of right, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, addressing an “unresolved” question about the appellate court’s jurisdiction.