One Court of Justice

On January 13, 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals released for publication its third opinion in County Road Association of Michigan v. Michigan Public Transit Association, No. 288653, dismissing the case because the plaintiff government agencies lacked standing to sue the state’s agents and agencies for transferring money out of various transportation revenue funds during Governor Engler’s administration.  After nine years of litigation, including two appeals and a ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals concluded that the county road commissions and public works departments had failed to allege that the challenged budgetary appropriations resulted in an injury distinct from that suffered by the public at large, failed to provide evidence of a causal connection between the alleged injury and the appropriations, and failed to demonstrate the appropriations caused them an actual injury.  The Court further ruled that the state had sovereign immunity from the plaintiffs’ claims.  Read more »

On November 19, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court granted applications for leave to appeal in three cases, which are discussed after the jump.  The Court also denied seven applications for leave and remanded Baldwin v. American Axel Manufacturing Holdings, No. 139416, and Sparks v. Citizen’s Insurance Company of America, No. 139070, as on leave granted.

Read more »

In Cadle Co. v. City of Kentwood, Sixty Second B District Court, Sixty Second B District Judge, No. 279430 (published July 30, 2009), the Court of Appeals concluded that assignees of judgments obtained in small-claims courts cannot participate in post-judgment proceedings and thus cannot obtain writs, garnishments and executions against property to collect on the assigned judgments.  The Court held that the term “prosecuted” in MCL § 600.8407(1), which prohibits assignees from prosecuting claims in the small-claims division, applies to both pre-judgment and post-judgment proceedings.

Read more »

Eight indigent criminal defendants whose cases were still pending trial filed a civil class action against the State of Michigan and the Governor alleging that the systems for court-appointed defense counsel in Berrien, Genesee, and Muskegon counties violated their rights to the effective assistance of counsel under the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions.  The State and the Governor moved to dismiss on the grounds, among others, of immunity, lack of standing, and lack of ripeness and also opposed certification of the class.  The trial court denied summary disposition and certified the class.  In a lengthy opinion in Duncan v. State of Michigan, Nos. 278652, 278858, & 278860 (published June 11, 2009), a divided panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary disposition and the grant of class certification, concluding that the indigent defendants were entitled to declaratory relief, prohibitory injunctive relief (that is, relief directing the State not to take certain actions), and “some level of mandatory injunctive relief” (that is, relief requiring the State to take certain actions).  The majority (J. Murphy and J. Sawyer) recognized that the case, if successful at trial, “could potentially entail the cessation of criminal prosecutions against indigent defendants absent constitutional compliance with the right to counsel.”  The opinion of the majority can be found here, and the dissent by J. Whitbeck here.

Read more »

On Friday, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published per curiam opinion in which it clarified Michigan law on “first priority insurer” status in a dispute between two insurance companies related to “personal injury protection” (PIP) under Michigan’s no-fault insurance law.  Tevis v. Amex Assurance Co. (Case No. 282412).  Plaintiff incurred serious injuries as he was driving his motorcycle.  The automobile involved in the accident was insured by Amex through a policy issued in the state of Washington.  Amex, though it had registered in Michigan under MCL § 500.3163, did not provide no-fault coverage to the automobile driver.  However, the automobile driver’s parents did have a no-fault policy issued through Geico Indemnity Co.  When both insurers declined to play plaintiff PIP benefits, plaintiff filed suit.  

Read more »

On March 3, 2009, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that environmental organizations lacked standing to challenge regulations in the absence of actual injury resulting from a concrete application of those regulations. The organizations sought to prevent the United States Forest Service from enforcing regulations that exempted certain activities from statutorily mandated notice, comment, and appeal process. The parties reached a settlement concerning the specific project at issue after the district court issued a preliminary injunction, but the plaintiffs pursued their claim as to whether the regulations were contrary to law in the abstract. Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, reaffirmed Supreme Court precedent that standing requires a showing that plaintiffs have a personal stake in the outcome of the dispute. The organizations lacked standing because they had not identified a specific application of the challenged regulations that threatened imminent and concrete harm to their members’ interests.  The opinion can be found here. Read more »

On January 27, 2009, the COA issued a published opinion in Lansing Schools Education Assocation v. Lansing School District Board of Education, No. 279895, affirming the lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit against the school district by its teachers’ union challenging the school district’s discipline of students because the teachers’ union lacked standing.

Read more »