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.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that both C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC, and Wallace had standing to file their respective lawsuits, but they were not the real parties in interest at the time of filing because they had assigned their claims for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits to third parties.

Trial Court erred in terminating mother’s parental rights to her six children. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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 trial court in this divorce case erroneously disregarded the parties’ valid and enforceable prenuptial agreement before dividing their marital property due to perceived inequities, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

Because the trial court was not permitted to exercise jurisdiction over respondent-father due to his status as a putative father at the time the petition was filed, it was barred from determining that it was in the best interests of CSA to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order terminating Respondent's parental rights to minor child GM. The Court reasoned that Petitioner, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), failed to create and implement a case service plan for Respondent as required by MCL 712A.18f.

A divided Michigan Court of Appeals has affirmed the termination of a mother’s parental rights, with one appellate judge saying the termination order should be reversed because the trial court “clearly erred” in finding that termination was in the children’s best interests.

The trial court’s finding that the termination of the respondents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interests must be “conditionally reverse[d],” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, because the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) failed to comply with its statutory duty to investigate relative placements.

The trial court “committed clear legal error” in this custody case by not applying the “parental presumption” or making the required best-interest determination before ordering that the plaintiff-mother’s child remain with the defendant, a putative father who had no legal rights to the child.

The Michigan Supreme Court has remanded a probate dispute to the Court of Appeals, ordering the three-judge appellate panel to explain why it awarded a party vexatious appeal sanctions under the Michigan Court Rules.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that requiring a social worker who abuses a child to report that abuse under the Child Protection Law violates the social worker’s right against self-incrimination.

The trial court erred in denying the respondent’s motion to terminate a personal protection order (PPO) that was issued against him because the court proceedings “lacked the due process needed for continuation of the PPO,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court in this child-protective proceeding did not “articulate an adequate basis or make sufficient factual findings to justify its denial of jurisdiction” over the minor child, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In this dispute over trust proceeds, the probate court correctly altered the decedent’s “special needs trust” to direct that the proceeds go to the decedent’s estate rather than to the trust’s residuary beneficiary, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Michigan Supreme Court decided the trial court wrongly held that expert testimony on shaken baby syndrome (SBS) was inadmissible under the rules of evidence and, as a result, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.