Perhaps law schools should start requiring their students (and maybe state bars, too!) to take a course on attorney ethics and social media.

Don’t get me wrong. I love the COA website (even the newly minted website to which I am still adjusting). In fact, I look at the docket sheet on the COA website, conservatively, 25 times per day.

When I attended oral argument the other day in People v Trakhtenberg (SCT Docket 143386), it was interesting to listen to the court's questions

The Court of Appeals in Frowner v Smith, addressed whether a parent has to satisfy the Vodvarka threshold to change custody from a third party custodian.

The Court of Appeal, on reconsideration, in Chesser v Radisson Plaza Hotel, left one Speaker without a leg to stand on, which is not surprising given the current state of premise liability in Michigan.

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.

From Kessler v Kessler, 295 Mich App 54 (2011), the Court held that the lower court was not obligated to consider the change of domicile factors.

The Michigan Supreme Court heard arguments on December 7, 2011 in a highway defect case this week in Whitmore v Charlevoix County Road Commission.

In In re TD, the COA held that application of SORA was not "punishment," so it could not be deemed unconstitutional on grounds that it was cruel and unusual as applied to the respondent.

In Sharp v City of Benton Harbor, the COA held that a curb comes within the definition of "a public highway, road, or street," for purposes of applying the highway exception to governmental immunity to municipalities.

The COA issued a published opinion addressing application of federal law (HIPAA) and state law of physician-patient privilege to discovery requests for non-party patient information.

In Kline v Dep't of Tranportation, the COA "begrudgingly" followed McCahan v Brennan, holding that the defendant was entitled to summary disposition where the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice provision.

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.

The Court of Appeals released a published opinion addressing spousal support and attorney fees in divorce cases in Myland v Myland.

The Michigan COA held that MCR 8.119(F)(5) does not give a trial court the discretion to seal prior court orders. Jenson v Puste arose out of a 2006 divorce case where the plaintiff wife obtained a PPO against her ex-husband.

In People v Tennyson, the MSC held that the possession of drugs and firearms, by itself, was not legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction under MCL 750.145.

In People v Szalma, the Michigan SCT held that a case for a new trial would subject a defendant to double jeopardy where the trial court had already determined that the prosecutor failed to present sufficient evidence to convict and granted a directed verdict of acquittal.

In a published opinion, the Sixth Circuit COA addressed an issue of first impression in our circuit: Whether a 9-1-1 "hang call" gives rise to an exception to the 4th Amendment protections against warrantless searches.