phone icon email icon
(517) 482-8933

Speaker Law
Blog

#
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.
Read More
#
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.
Read More
#
Posted: Jun 19, 2019, 9:10 AM
The defendant, Larry Mead, was a passenger in a vehicle that had been pulled over by Jackson Police Officer Richard Burkart for an expired license plate. Officer Burkart observed the defendant clutching a backpack on his lap. Both the defendant and the driver of the car told Officer Burkart the two had just met and that the driver was giving him (Mead) a ride.
Read More
#
Posted: May 15, 2019, 4:06 PM
The fact that a “Solely for the Benefit” (SBO) trust (1) includes former assets of a spouse who is now institutionalized and (2) allows the trustee to make payments to the non-institutionalized spouse does not automatically make the SBO trust assets countable for purposes of determining the institutionalized spouse’s Medicaid eligibility, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled.
Read More
#
Posted: Mar 25, 2019, 3:00 PM
In People v. Mullins, the Court of Appeals held that while the defendant was neither a mandatory reporter of child abuse nor did she actually make the report of child abuse herself, she was still criminally liable for the false report. People v Mullins, 322 Mich App 151 (2017).
Read More
#
Posted: Oct 3, 2018, 1:25 PM
A woman who fell and injured herself while washing her vehicle at a self-serve car wash is entitled to no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) benefits, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in a 2-1 published decision.
Read More
#
Posted: Sep 12, 2018, 11:30 AM
MCL 168.937, which is part of the state’s Election Law, is a penalty provision that does not create a substantive offense, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled in a unanimous decision. As a result, §937 could not be used as the basis to prosecute the defendant in People v Pinkney (Docket No. 154374), for alleged election-law forgery, the Supreme Court held.
Read More
#
Posted: Jan 24, 2018, 10:30 AM
The case of Ray v Swager, No: 322766, came to the Michigan Court of Appeals (MCOA) on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court. In the first appeal to the MCOA, Eric Swager appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion for summary disposition. The MCOA reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded for entry of summary disposition in Swager’s favor based on the conclusion that reasonable minds could not conclude that Swager was “the proximate cause” of plaintiff Ray’s injuries.
Read More
#
Posted: Jun 27, 2017, 2:50 PM
On June 15, 2017, the Michigan Supreme Court decided Kemp v Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan (Docket No. 151719), a case concerning a plaintiff’s claim for personal injury benefits when he was injured while unloading items from his vehicle.
Read More
#
Posted: Jun 22, 2017, 7:10 PM
The Supreme Court released updated court rules for probate appeals, to accommodate the major legislative changes from 2016. Effective September 27, 2016, all orders from the probate courts are appealable to the Court of Appeals. MCL 600.683.
Read More
#
Posted: Oct 3, 2016, 1:35 PM
The Supreme Court (SCt.), after granting leave and taking full briefing and arguments in Black v Shafer, (149516), reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals (312379) and reinstated Wayne County Circuit Order granting Summary Disposition in favor of the defendant Anthony Shafer. The SCt decided the case on proximate cause, which was not an issue it asked the parties to address.
Read More
#
Posted: May 25, 2016, 10:30 AM
As we reported earlier, employees looking for job protection under the Whistleblowers Protection Act (WPA) will have to search elsewhere when they report a suspected future violation of the law under the Michigan Supreme Court ruling in Pace v Edel-Harrelson No. 151374. The court held that such reports were not “protected activity” under the WPA. It remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the plaintiff’s claim that her termination was a violation of public policy.
Read More
#
Posted: Apr 11, 2016, 1:05 PM
The Michigan Supreme Court has directed that, when finalizing adoptions, trial courts must use specific language on the record, indicating that no appeal is pending in the underlying termination of parental rights case.
Read More
#
Posted: Mar 21, 2016, 10:25 AM
The Michigan Supreme Court has peremptorily vacated the termination of a mother’s parental rights, as well as the Michigan Court of Appeals decision upholding that termination.
Read More
#
Posted: Mar 15, 2016, 5:10 PM
The Michigan Supreme Court is poised to decide the effect, if any, that MCL 552.23 and MCL 552.401 have on a divorced couple’s antenuptial agreement. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on March 10, 2016.
Read More
#
Posted: Mar 4, 2016, 2:15 PM
The Michigan Supreme Court recently refused to hear the appeal in In re Maes (Docket No. 152973). The denial of leave in Maes means that significant flaws in appellate case precedent have now been left intact, impacting hundreds of parental rights proceedings.
Read More
#
Posted: Feb 29, 2016, 1:30 PM
An employee who was fired after reporting a suspected future violation of law could not bring a retaliatory discharge claim under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled in Pace v Edel-Harrelson (Docket No. 151374).
Read More
#
Posted: Feb 8, 2016, 12:05 PM
The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in People v Ackley shows just how crucial it is for defense lawyers to adequately investigate their client’s case and make good use of expert witnesses.
Read More
#
Posted: Oct 6, 2015, 11:00 AM
It is well known in Michigan that attorneys who do court-appointed work are usually paid pretty miserably for their time. This is true both in the trial court and on appeal. Each county sets its own pay scale. A recent supreme court order gives one such court-appointed attorney a chance to recover his "extraordinary fees" on a court appointed criminal appeal. In re Attorney Fees of John W. Ujlaky, SCt order issued September 30, 2015 (Docket 150887).
Read More
#
Posted: Jul 24, 2015, 2:35 PM
Yesterday, the Michigan Supreme Court released a unanimous decision in People v Stevens, __ Mich __; __ NW2d__ (July 23, 2015) (Docket No. 149380), where it reversed a defendant's conviction for second degree murder and child abuse and remanded to the trial court for a new trial because of the trial judge's improper conduct that "pierced the veil of judicial impartiality."
Read More

Subscribe to our blog

* indicates required

Archived
Posts

Tags