Under MCR 5.121(D)(2)(a), a probate court has an affirmative duty to afford all interested persons the opportunity to examine and controvert a guardian ad litem (GAL) report once it has been received into evidence—regardless of whether the interested person formally requests access and regardless of whether the report is designated as confidential.

In this no-fault insurance case, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ denial of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to the injured plaintiff, finding the appeals court misinterpreted the applicable no-fault statute and wrongly extended dicta from case precedent.

An attorney who uses AI software to draft appellate briefs and files them without properly verifying the cited legal authorities violates ethical duties of competence and candor.

The trial court cannot restrict use of an easement when neither the easement itself nor past practice supports that restriction. Additionally, the trial court erred in finding the Association liable for nuisance as there were no findings of fact supporting the nuisance claim and any conduct that disrupted Plaintiffs enjoyment of their property was the conduct of individual subdivision owners, not the Association.

The “American rule” does not necessarily bar a claim for attorney fees in an accounting malpractice action, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled in Merrifield v ATS Advisors, et al.

The Court of Appeals vacated the order terminating Respondents’ parental rights because the trial court plainly erred by excusing reasonable efforts toward reunification without a proper aggravated circumstances finding.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) only applies to invalidate arbitration provisions in contracts "evidencing a transaction involving commerce."

The Court unanimously overruled In re Estate of Schroeder, 335 Mich App 107 (2020), which had held that probate courts cannot consider Medicaid-related circumstances until after a formal eligibility determination is made.

In this case involving the suicide of a teenage resident at the Calumet Center, a Michigan-licensed child-caring institution, the trial court should not have granted summary disposition for the plaintiff-parents on the issue of comparative fault because it was a factual question for the jury, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the probate court acted within its discretion when it determined that the appellant’s litigation did not enhance, preserve, or protect trust property, provisions that MCL 700.7904(1) requires before awarding fees from the trust.

The Michigan Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a dispute over the title to funds in a decedent’s credit union account, ordering the parties in In re Sherrod Estate to address “what constitutes sufficient evidence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship.”

The no‑fault act permits an injured motorcyclist—or their medical provider—to continue down the statutory order of priority under MCL 500.3114(5) once a higher‑priority insurer's capped benefits have been exhausted.

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled for the first time that, while the 2021 Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) does constitute “punishment” for those who must register, it is not “cruel or unusual punishment” that violates the state or federal Constitutions.

When an electronically filed complaint is rejected by the clerk for a defect, the operative filing date is the date the corrected, accepted complaint is submitted — not the original rejected submission.

The plaintiff, who was injured when a goose attacked him on a hospital’s property, can pursue a premises liability claim against the hospital because the plaintiff alleged 1) the goose was a condition of the land whose dangerousness was known and 2) the hospital failed to warn him about the dangerous goose.

In this case involving parties who represented themselves at a custody hearing, the trial court wrongly precluded the plaintiff from introducing any evidence beyond her own testimony at the hearing, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

On the highway-by-user claim, the Court of Appeals held that Plaintiff-Appellants did have standing under Donaldson v Alcona Co Bd of Co Rd Comm’rs, 219 Mich App 718, 727 n 3; 558 NW2d 232 (1996) because they own property along the road and bear unique burdens if maintenance ceases.

The trial court wrongly ordered the minor child’s legal guardian to pay some of the respondent-mother’s attorney fees in this proceeding to terminate the respondent’s parental rights and adopt the child, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.