Speaker Law
Blog
Posted: Oct 16, 2019, 11:15 AM
In Slocum v Floyd, the defendant was divorced from the plaintiffs’ son. After the divorce, the plaintiffs’ son had primary physical custody of the children and both parents shared legal custody. The plaintiffs’ son later remarried but died in a motorcycle accident. After their son’s death, the plaintiffs filed emergency petitions seeking a temporary guardianship over the children.
Posted: Oct 11, 2019, 3:05 PM
In August 2014, Dr. El-Khalil had sued Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., alleging racial discrimination in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), as well as tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship and defamation.
Posted: Oct 9, 2019, 10:55 AM
In Luna v Regnier, the Tuscola County Circuit Court completely suspended the mother’s parenting time with her children, finding there was clear and convincing evidence the children’s mental and emotional health was endangered by allowing her to visit with them.
Posted: Oct 2, 2019, 4:00 PM
In a recent published Court of Appeals opinion, Slocum v Farm Bureau General Insurance Co of Michigan, issued June 18, 2019 (Docket No. 343333), the Court of Appeals was called upon to consider a consolidated appeal about “whether a deceased’s dependents are entitled to the replacement cost of obtaining medical and dental benefits similar to those provided by the deceased’s former employer or to the monetary value of the premiums paid by the former employer.”
Posted: Sep 25, 2019, 11:30 AM
In In re White Trust (Docket Nos. 338008 and 338009), the decedent was the father of the petitioners, James, Bruce, Jeff and Doug White, and was the father of the respondent, David White. The decedent’s original will and trust devised his estate equally to all five sons.
Posted: Sep 18, 2019, 12:10 PM
In the case of In re Estate of Seville (Docket No. 348819), plaintiff Tonya Phillips and defendant Andrew Seville were divorced. The couple had a contentious relationship. When their daughter was killed in a 2019 accident, the plaintiff and the defendant sought to be individually named as the personal representative of her estate.
Posted: Sep 11, 2019, 11:30 AM
A probate court erroneously applied the statute of limitations in the Michigan Trust Code to bar the plaintiffs’ challenge to the validity of their mother’s trust, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.
Posted: Sep 4, 2019, 10:15 AM
Carol Rosebrook and Robert Lewis were a couple for about 24 years but never married. They had several joint and individual bank accounts. This case involved three bank accounts jointly owned by Rosebrook and Lewis, who had equal ownership of the accounts and had equal rights to access and use the funds.
Posted: Aug 28, 2019, 11:05 AM
In In re AMR (Docket No. 344560), the petitioner-mother and the respondent-father were never married and had one child, AMR, together in 2013. When the petitioner married Adam Dizotell in 2017, she filed a petition to terminate the respondent’s parental rights so that Dizotell could adopt AMR.
Posted: Aug 21, 2019, 9:30 AM
In In re AGD, Minor (Docket No. 345717), the petitioner-mother and the respondent-father were never married and in 2015 had one child together, AGD. The respondent established paternity by affidavit of parentage.
Posted: Aug 14, 2019, 10:50 AM
In In re RC, Minor (Docket No. 343736), the biological parents’ rights had been terminated and the child, RC, was committed to the Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI) for adoption planning. RC was placed in the care of the petitioner, Lucinda Carrier, who had obtained a foster care license and was the child’s paternal aunt. Thereafter, the petitioner sought to legally adopt RC.
Posted: Aug 7, 2019, 10:50 AM
The petitioners appealed, arguing their case was timely brought before the ALJ. They claimed an evidentiary hearing would have shown this to be true, but the ALJ made factual findings against them without giving them the opportunity to present their evidence.
Posted: Jul 31, 2019, 12:45 PM
Battalion chiefs are second-in-command to the fire chief. Their duties include supervising firefighters, devising work plans, administering disciplinary action and inspecting/maintaining equipment, among other things.
Posted: Jul 25, 2019, 3:50 PM
The parties, Plaintiff-Husband Richard W. Dorko and Defendant-Wife Shelby S. Dorko, were divorced in 2005. The court awarded Defendant-Wife half of the marital interest in Plaintiff-Husband’s retirement benefits and pension via a QDRO through his employment with General Motors.
Posted: Jul 24, 2019, 1:00 PM
The plaintiffs, who were members of the Registered Nurses and Registered Pharmacists Union (RNRPh), both called off work on May 11, 2017. The defendant fired the plaintiffs in June 2017 for allegedly striking on that day, in violation of Article 36 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the union and the defendant.
Posted: Jul 19, 2019, 9:15 AM
The case arose when the Department of Health and Human Services petitioned the Otsego Circuit Court, Family Division, to remove minor JF from her parents. The Department alleged that JF’s parents had failed to adequately attend to JF’s medical needs by missing several of her medical appointments; not refilling her prescription medications; and failing to provide adequate living conditions for JF.
Posted: Jul 17, 2019, 11:10 AM
The plaintiff in Rivera v SVRC Industries, Inc. (Docket No. 341516) asserted the defendant violated the Whisteblowers Protection Act (WPA) when it laid her off shortly after she reported another employee’s conduct to supervisors and indicated she may report the conduct to police.
Posted: Jul 10, 2019, 9:05 AM
In Eplee v City of Lansing, the Lansing Board of Water and Light (BWL) rescinded the offer of employment it had made to the plaintiff following a mandatory drug screening that detected THC in the plaintiff’s system.
Posted: Jul 3, 2019, 11:15 AM
The alleged facts that lead to the removal of Theresa Brennan began around the time she was first appointed to the bench in 2005. Although a district court judge, Brennan had been sitting by assignment in the Circuit Court Family Division.
Posted: Jun 26, 2019, 11:10 AM
The defendant was charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI), in violation of MCL 257.625. The defendant filed a motion in 8th District Court (Kalamazoo County) to suppress the blood-draw evidence that was obtained. He argued the blood draw was an illegal warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment because he was threatened with losing his driving privileges if he refused consent.
Content © 2019 Speaker Law Firm, PLLC | Website designed by AE Lansing Web Design
All major credit cards accepted.
All major credit cards accepted.