On January 30, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court entered orders on miscellaneous procedural motions granting extensions to the briefing schedule in several cases and granting various parties leave to file amicus briefs. Â The Court also revised its order granting a motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal in Jacobson v. Norfolk Development Corporation.
On Thursday, January 29, the MSC took action in two cases.  In one, the MSC denied a prisoner’s motion to waive the filing fees.  In the other, Jacobson v. Norfolk Development Corp., the MSC also granted sanctions against the appellant, ruling that there “was no reasonable basis for belief that there was a meritorious issue to be determined on appeal.”
In yesterday’s order list, the Michigan Supreme Court granted applications in two criminal cases.
As previously reported in this Blog, the Michigan Supreme Court is accepting comments until May 1 on two proposals addressing cellphone use in Michigan courts. The Battle Creek Enquirer weighs in with its recommendation here.
Tom Goldstein, founder of the SCOTUSBlog, has issued his short list of potential U.S. Supeme Court nominees in the event that Justices Stevens and/or Souter retire at the end of the Term, as expected. He lists three frontrunners and one “sleeper” candidate, Governor Jennifer Granholm. The full post can be read here.
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.
On Tuesday, the Michigan Supreme Court denied 69 applications for leave to appeal, denied reconsideration in 14 other appeals, and held one application for leave to appeal in abeyance pending a decision in a separate appeal that might resolve the issue presented. The Court also clarified its remand order in Young v. Nandi, No. 134799.
On Monday, the Supreme Court denied in one case an appellant’s motion to waive his filing fee.
On Friday, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave in one case and remanded one case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of an additional issue. The Court also took substantive action in the following cases:
People v. Whitaker: the Court reversed, in part, the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Wayne County Circuit Court for a hearing to obtain testimony of an alibi witness. After the hearing, the circuit court is ordered to grant a new trial unless it finds that the absence of the witness from the first trial is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The order can be found here.
People v. Oliver: the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacated the trial court’s sentence, and remanded the case to the Genesee County Circuit Court for resentencing. The Court explained that the trial court failed to offer a valid explanation of why an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines was warranted. Justice Weaver dissented, relying on her opinion in People v. Babcock, 469 Mich. 247, 280-84 (2003), because she believed that the trial court offered “a substantial and compelling reason” for its departure. The order can be found here.
People v. Biskner: the Court remanded the case to the Tuscola County Circuit Court in lieu of granting leave to appeal for a hearing under People v. Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (1973), to assess appellate counsel’s claim that trial defense counsel was ineffective because she failed to request a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense. The Court retained jurisdiction. Justices Corrigan and Young dissented because they believe the request for a Ginther hearing was waived in the lower courts. The order can be found here.
Yesterday, the Michigan Supreme Court took action in two appeals.  First, it denied an appellant’s motion seeking the waiver of filing fees. Second, it dismissed an appeal because the appellant failed to pay the required filing fees.
The AP is reporting that the Michigan Supreme Court has put off debating new procedural rules for recusal of justices. The report, in the Chicago Tribune, can be found here.
On January 21, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal in 11 cases, and issued an order directing the Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney to answer an application for leave to appeal.
The Court also granted leave to appeal in People v. McGraw to determine several important issues regarding the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, the Court will consider what constitutes “the crime” for purposes of scoring the offense variable, when an offense is completed for purposes of scoring, whether an accomplice may be considered a victim for purposes of scoring under the guidelines, and whether the defendant was properly assessed ten (10) points under the guidelines for a crime involving two to nine victims where the defendant broke into an unoccupied store but, in the course of driving away, he was involved in a collision with two accomplices. The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense Attorneys Association were invited to file brief amicus curiae in this matter. A copy of the order granting leave to appeal can be found here.
At the Court’s administrative conference, the Court will review the process for recusing a justice from participating in a case. The Court’s current practice is that if a party moves for a justice’s recusal, that justice decides whether to participate in the case and is not required to explain the decision in writing. Justice Weaver has criticized the current practice is the strongest terms over the past several years.
The conference will occur after oral arguments today. The agenda can be found here.
The Michigan Supreme Court has issued two alternative proposals governing cell phone usage in court facilities. A copy of the proposals can be found here. Written comments may be submitted to the Court by May 1, 2009.
A divided Sixth Circuit panel today reversed a 2007 Eastern District of Michigan ruling in favor of Michigan attorney Geoffrey Fieger. The lawsuit arose out of controversial comments Mr. Fieger made in a 1999 radio interview that were critical of Michigan appellate judges. A Detroit Free Press summary of the Sixth Circuit’s decision can be found here. The Sixth Circuit’s decision can be found here.
On January 22, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Van Slembrouk v. Halperin, No. 135893, on the issue of whether medical malpractice plaintiffs relying on the 10-years-of-age provision in MCL 600.5851(7) are entitled to the benefit of the notice-of-intent tolling provision in MCL 600.5856(c). The parties have focused their arguments on whether MCL 600.5851(7) is a savings provision, rather than a statute limitation, but the Court could, in theory, conclude that the tolling provision applies either way. The Order granting leave to appeal can be found here. The parties’ briefs can be found here.
On January 16th, the Michigan Supreme Court dismissed one application on stipulation, denied leave in seven cases, and remanded one case for reconsideration of the trial court’s imposition of attorney fees in light of the Court of Appeals’ opinion in People v. Trapp (On Remand), 280 Mich. App. 598 (2008). Justice Hathaway did not participate in the order dismissing on stipulation, explaining that to avoid unnecessary delay, she will follow the practice of previous Justices in transition and participate only in cases that need her vote to achieve a majority for decision.
On January 22, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Petersen v. Magna Corp., No. 136542-43, on whether the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.315(1) authorizes an employee to obtain an award of attorney fees for unpaid medical expenses from his employer or the worker’s compensation insurer, or simply authorizes proration between the employee and medical provider of the contingent fee paid out of the claimant’s recovery under MCL 418.858 and Rule 14 of the General Rules promulgated by Worker’s Compensation Agency. The Court will also consider the meaning of language in Section 315 providing for proration of attorney fees, whether this proration is limited to the parties in the worker’s compensation action, which parties are subject to such proration, and the status of insurers and medical providers regarding such proration.  The Court’s order granting leave can be found here. The briefs of the parties and the amici curiae can be found here.
Yesterday, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave in four cases.
The WNJ Appellate Practice Group is one of the State’s premier appellate litigation practice groups, counting among its members a recent Michigan Court of Appeals judge and former federal appellate clerks from the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Circuits. Over the past five years, our attorneys have appeared in the U.S. Supreme Court 15 times; litigated in nearly every federal Circuit; regularly argued in the Michigan Supreme Court; and participated in numerous Michigan Court of Appeals cases.
more about »
 | Aaron Lindstrom |
 | Gaetan Gerville-Reache |
 | Jason Byrne |
 | John Bursch |
 | Jonathan Moore |
 | Julie Lam |
 | Kevin Kileen |
 | Madelaine Lane |
 | Matthew Nelson |
 | Nicole Mazzocco |
 | Richard Roane |
 | Sarah Lindsey |
 | Sarah Riley Howard |