The COA held that a judge can pierce the veil of impartiality outside of the presence of a jury, and the judge did so here by suggesting questions that the prosecutor could ask on cross-examination, which amounted to the judge engaging in litigation strategy. However, this conduct did not amount to plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights. The COA, thus, affirmed the conviction and sentence.

MCL 500.3114(2)(c) prioritizes vehicles “operated in the business of transporting passengers” and contains a related carveout for “a bus operating under a government sponsored transportation program.” In this case, the Court of Appeals ruled that this subsection applies in this case, and it affirms the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant.

The Court of Appeals emphasized an important corollary; a trial court is obligated to grant summary disposition when there is no genuine issue of material facts. In this case, there is no such issue, given the amount of photographic and video footage of the incident, no reasonable juror could find that the bus driver was more at fault than the plaintiff. 

The trial court in this divorce action erroneously granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition because there was a genuine issue whether oral postnuptial agreements existed, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In a divorce action filed almost ten years after a Consent Judgment of Separate Maintenance was entered including an order to sell the marital home and non-modifiable alimony payments, the Court of Appeals held that the parties’ agreements in the separate maintenance action were binding on the Trial Court in entering a subsequent Judgment of Divorce, except on issues where the parties both requested modification.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s denial of grandparenting time because, under Michigan’s grandparenting time statute, MCL 722.27b, the opportunity to be heard includes at a minimum the right to testify.

A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, finding it should not have been dismissed because the unsolicited faxes sent to the plaintiff’s dental office were indeed “advertisements” that violated the law.

The Court reversed the trial court’s finding of aggravated circumstances because under MCL 722.638(1)(a), a court may bypass reunification and consider termination of parental rights at the outset only when a parent has already abused the child or the child’s sibling, not when there is anticipatory abuse or where the sibling is not biological.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s grant of summary disposition for Plaintiff’s breach of contract and public policy-based retaliation claims.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to allow the receiver to reject a lease because the plain language of the Michigan Receiver Act allows a receiver to do so. The COA also affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to strike cross-default language from the contracts with Skymint.

There is no “taking” under the Michigan Constitution’s Takings Clause if the foreclosing governmental unit attempts to sell the foreclosed-upon property at a public auction but the property does not sell, the Michigan Supreme Court has unanimously decided.

The Takings Clause of the Michigan Constitution was violated where the plaintiffs’ foreclosed-on properties were never offered for sale at a public auction, the Michigan Supreme Court has unanimously ruled.

The Trial Court erred when it effectively changed physical custody based solely on an in camera interview with the children without making findings regarding whether the change would alter the established custodial environment and applying the appropriate burden of proof, whether modification was in the children’s best interests.

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.