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.

Attorneys, parties and subpoenaed witnesses cannot be subject to civil arrest while traveling to, attending or leaving court proceedings or performing related legal duties under a recent amendment to Michigan Court Rule 8.115.

‍ ‍

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 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.

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 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.

The Michigan Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a case addressing whether the City of Royal Oak violated the Open Meetings Act because the city commission effectively delegated its governing authority to the city manager, who chose in closed-door meetings which applicants would be awarded retail marijuana licenses.

The Michigan Supreme Court has vacated a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the termination of a father’s parental rights, sending the case back to the appeals court for reconsideration after the father files a supplemental brief.

There is no “taking” under the Michigan Constitution’s Takings Clause if the foreclosing governmental unit attempts to sell the foreclosed-upon property at a public auction but the property does not sell, the Michigan Supreme Court has unanimously decided.

The Takings Clause of the Michigan Constitution was violated where the plaintiffs’ foreclosed-on properties were never offered for sale at a public auction, the Michigan Supreme Court has unanimously ruled.

The Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee have standing to sue City of Flint officials for not appointing enough inspectors during the 2022 election, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that while contractually shortened limitations periods are generally permitted, such provisions in adhesive, non-negotiated employment agreements require close judicial scrutiny and must be examined for reasonableness.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) was not required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family because the respondent-parent subjected the child to aggravated circumstances, as defined under MCL 722.638(1) and (2), by facilitating criminal sexual conduct involving penetration, even though the parent did not personally commit the act.

The Court held that remanding for nonsummary contempt proceedings after vacating a summary conviction for insufficient findings is improper when the original contempt was appropriately handled summarily (because it occurred in the judge’s presence) however, the record was too insufficient to support a conviction and the original proceeding has long concluded.

In an unanimous opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that there is no clear evidence that the Legislature intended the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA) to eliminate common-law claims such as fraud, conversion, and breach of contract arising from a gambling dispute between a patron and an online gaming licensee.