Have you ever wondered whether mandatory reporters will really be held to have civil liability if they fail to report suspected child abuse? The Court of Appeals addressed this issue in the Estate of Rufus Young JR. v Detroit Medical Center and Children's Hospital, et al.

In the much-anticipated decision regarding judicial recusal, SCOTUS ruled in Caperton v Massey Coal Co. that the West Virginia Supreme Court justice who received $3,000,000 in campaign contributions should have recused himself.

In Teel v Allstate Insurance, 284 Mich App 660 (2009), the Court of Appeals held that Michigan does not recognize a cause of action for spoliation of evidence. In Teel, Plaintiff lost his wife in an apartment fire.

The Court of Appeals reversed a Michigan trial court's decision to recognize a foreign divorce in Tarikonda v Pinjari (unpublished decision).

Over the years, I have observed that there are many times when the COA in a published decision does not acknowledge a prior published opinion that is on point, or disagrees with a prior published opinion.

In In re Contempt of Henry, a published opinion of the COA, the Court addressed a criminal contempt matter arising from appellant, attorney Kathy Henry’s, involvement with her brother, defendant Charles Henry’s, post-divorce judgment child support enforcement case.

In Shannon v Foster Swift Collins & Smith, P.C., former clients brought a legal malpractice suit against the law firm and attorney who represented them in a real estate matter.

The Supreme Court issued an order on the long-awaited non-refundable retainer case pending before it in Cooper v Attorney Grievance Commission. In that case, the client hired an attorney to represent her in a divorce action.

You surely are familiar with the adage, "the man who represents himself has a fool for a client." This phrase took on special meaning in the COA decision People v Cochrane, in which the Court determined that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow a criminal defendant to represent himself.

Legal circles are abuzz with speculation about the possible impact the stunning election of Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Diane Hathaway will have on the Michigan Supreme Court and more importantly, Michigan Law.

Getting stuck with joint liability for attorneys’ fees after a reversal in the COA is like being saddled with the dinner tab after a bad date - no fair.

The COA upheld Heidi's Law in People v Perkins. Heidi's Law is MCL 257.265 and increases the penalty for persons convicted of driving under the influence if the person has been convicted of the offense 3 or more times at any time, even though the statute of limitations is 10 years.

Recently, the Court of Appeals took on an interesting battle between attorney and former client in Seyburn v Bakshi, where Law Firm was suing its Former Client for unpaid legal fees.

In Estes v Titus, a woman brought a wrongful death suit against the man who killed her husband. She obtains a judgment but when it came time to collect the wrongful death judgment, the man was in prison.

The COA prohibited a trial attorney from recovering additional fees for his work in Reed v Breton. In that case, the trial attorney had a one-third contingency fee agreement with the plaintiff, but the agreement excluded any appeals.

In re Orozco Minors, a rare published termination of parental rights case, the COA reversed a decision of the Macomb County Family Court terminating respondents’ parental rights when they were deported to Guatemala.

In the case In re Michael Robert Benbow III, Minor, the COA reversed an order of the Clinton County Family Court terminating a father’s parental rights in a step-parent adoption case.

In Powery v Wells, the COA affirmed a trial court’s order changing custody of a minor child based on the mother’s move from Ludington to Traverse City.