The trial court in this “contentious” divorce case properly required the ex-husband to post a security bond each time he filed a motion or pleading, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, due to his “repeated” filing of “meritless” pleadings that violated the court rules.

MCL 500.3114(2)(c) prioritizes vehicles “operated in the business of transporting passengers” and contains a related carveout for “a bus operating under a government sponsored transportation program.” In this case, the Court of Appeals ruled that this subsection applies in this case, and it affirms the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant.

The trial court wrongly dismissed the plaintiff’s medical malpractice and negligence claims that arose during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic because the decedent’s injuries were not sustained “by reason of” healthcare services provided “in support of [the] state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The plaintiff demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding the hospital's liability for medical malpractice under the theory of ostensible agency and did not need to show further reliance under the Grewe test.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled the Oakland County trial court improperly granted an ex-husband’s motion to “clarify” the parties’ judgment of divorce because, in doing so, the trial court actually modified the judgment, thereby affecting the parties’ substantive rights.

The Michigan Court of Appeals, in a custody case on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, has ruled that a portion of its original opinion “erroneously instructed the trial court to apply MCL 722.31 to determine the child’s domicile.”

The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim against the defendant and his law firm because one of the plaintiffs repeatedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In this suit contesting the validity of a divorce judgment, the trial court correctly held that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and, as a result, properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court in this custody matter improperly refused to hold an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff-mother’s request to modify custody and parenting time, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.