Summary disposition was not warranted where there were factual disputes about whether a truck’s turn signals were operating at the time of the accident. Further, sanctions for spoliation of evidence must be supported by findings at the trial court that the evidence at issue was material and that the party had a duty to preserve the evidence before a lawsuit was filed.

The city of Detroit was not entitled to summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity after the Court determined that a metal stub protruding out of a paved sidewalk constituted a “sidewalk defect” and created “a dangerous condition”. . The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded to the trial court.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant summary disposition in favor of Defendants, an attorney and his law firm.  The Court reasoned that Defendants were immune from tort liability when speaking to the State Bar of Michigan’s character-and-fitness committee regarding Plaintiff, a law school graduate, even if their statements could have been false or misleading.

The trial court erred in failing to grant partial summary disposition on the issue of the 2019 amendments to the No-Fault Act, the Court of Appeals reversed.

The trial court correctly determined that a nonsurrendering parent who establishes a 99.99% probability of paternity and obtains summary disposition on the issue of paternity is a legal parent under the Safe Delivery of Newborns Law (SDNL).

In addition to improperly granting summary disposition, the Trial Court legally erred in finding that the objection to sharing of referral fees under MRPC 1.5(e) was timely.

Summary disposition was prematurely granted to the defendant in this dispute over attorney referral fees because discovery “had not begun in earnest”.

School districts can be held liable under ELCRA for creating a hostile educational environment arising from student-on-student sexual harassment, the Michigan COA has ruled for the first time.

Trial court ruled that plaintiff didn’t have an interest in the home purchased by the defendant and the defendant’s inheritance, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The defendants were properly granted summary disposition, because they were governmental employees who were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.

An attorney’s alleged defamatory statements to another lawyer while waiting for a court-ordered mediation conference to begin were confidential mediation communications.

The trial court in this defamation case erred by striking an attorney’s affidavit and precluding the attorney from testifying.

The trial court in this dog-bite case improperly granted summary disposition to the animal’s owners, because the dog was not provoked by the victim.

Because of a failure to disclose a possible personal injury claim in a pending bankruptcy action, the defendants’ motion for summary disposition.

In In re Moore, an interested party in a probate estate alleged that the personal representative provided fraudulent misinformation about the legal obligation to repay a mortgage loan secured by a mortgage on real property.

In Harris vs. J.B. Robinson Jewelers, a published opinion, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's Opinion granting Defendant, J.B. Robinson Jewelers, summary disposition.