The Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee have standing to sue City of Flint officials for not appointing enough inspectors during the 2022 election, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled.

The Right to Farm Act (RTFA) may be invoked with regard to ordinances enacted before 2000 where those ordinances are subject to prospective enforcement for post-2000 activities.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services was wrongly ordered to return or destroy the plaintiffs’ stored blood spots and data that had been collected under Michigan’s newborn health screening program, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that while contractually shortened limitations periods are generally permitted, such provisions in adhesive, non-negotiated employment agreements require close judicial scrutiny and must be examined for reasonableness.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) was not required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family because the respondent-parent subjected the child to aggravated circumstances, as defined under MCL 722.638(1) and (2), by facilitating criminal sexual conduct involving penetration, even though the parent did not personally commit the act.

The trial court in this termination of parental rights case correctly held that it was in the minor child’s best interests to terminate the respondent-father’s parental rights, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in a 2-1 decision.

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 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 wrongful death savings provisions under MCL 600.5852 extends the filing timeframe and tolls the statutory notice period and therefore the Court of Claims grant of summary disposition was reversed and remanded.

The trial court in this custody case did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s request for a medical examination of the plaintiff, her ex-husband, 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 trial court in this termination of parental rights case applied the wrong legal framework when assessing the children’s best interests, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

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 Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case where the lower courts ruled that, because the installation of a replacement roof on a commercial building constituted “new construction” and an “addition,” the property’s taxable value was properly increased beyond the statutory cap.

The trial court violated MCR 1.111(B)(1) by 1) requiring Appellant to make multiple interpreter requests and 2) not allowing the present interpreter who qualified under MCR 1.111(F)(2) to be used. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals found that the record supports that it is not in DRRR’s best interests to return to Guatemala and should instead remain in Appellant’s custody in the United States.

The trial court properly awarded case-evaluation sanctions under now-eliminated Michigan Court Rule 2.403(O) because it “had discretion to apply the former court rule” under Michigan Court Rule 1.102 “and did not abuse that discretion,” the Michigan Supreme Court has held.