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.

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.”

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.

MCL 600.5852, the wrongful-death saving provision that gives a personal representative extra time to file suit after the general period of limitations has run, itself creates a limitations period and is therefore subject to the tolling mechanism of MCL 600.5856(c) during the 182-day medical-malpractice notice period.

A custody order does not determine a child’s domicile for purposes of the no-fault act. As the domicile rule set forth in Grange Ins Co of Mich v Lawrence, 494 Mich 475 (2013) requires courts to treat child custody orders as dispositive of the question of domicile, Grange is overruled.

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.

As the sole member of the limited-liability company that held title to the tractor, plaintiff had the exclusive, unsupervised right to use, maintain, and make all decisions regarding the vehicle for more than 30 days, which comported with ownership, regardless of the fact that title was held by his single-member LLC.

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.

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.”