One Court of Justice

According to CNN.com:

Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring after more than 18 years on the nation’s highest court, a source close to Souter told CNN. Souter will leave after the current court term recesses in June, the source said. Filling Souter’s seat would be President Obama’s first Supreme Court appointment — and the first since George W. Bush’s picks of Samuel Alito in 2006 and Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005.

The full story is here.

On April 28, 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals released its published opinion in Yono v. Carlson, Case No. 281268, clarifying the appropriate venue for claims of defamation per se under MCL § 600.1629(1)(a).  Defendant Carlson and his newspaper published allegedly defamatory statements regarding plaintiff Yono and his construction companies.  The court held that the injury occurred where the defendants first printed and issued the defamatory newspaper, and so the county where publication occurred was the appropriate venue.  The Court of Appeals opinion may be found here.

Read more »

On April 29, 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an order in In re Wayne Circuit Judge, Case No. 290971, directing the trial court to open the post-conviction proceedings to the public and allow the release of transcripts from the post-conviction hearing.  Read more »

On April 29, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal in six cases and denied reconsideration in one case.  In Orchard Estates v. Dawood, Case No. 137974, in lieu of granting appeal, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that because the bylaws and the restrictive covenants were unrecorded, neither were binding on defendants.  However, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals majority’s analysis of the Michigan Condominium Act because the Court concluded the analysis was unnecessary to reach a decision in this case.  A copy of the order can be found here.  The Court also granted leave to appeal in Kyser v. Kasson Township, which is discussed after the jump. Read more »

The Michigan Supreme Court will hold a public administrative hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 12, 2009, in the Supreme Court courtroom.  The Court will address whether to adopt (1) a proposed amendment to MCR 2.112 that would clarify the rules regarding affidavits of merit; (2) a proposed amendment to MRE 611 to clarify that judges are entitled to establish reasonable standards regarding the appearance of parties and witnesses; (3) proposed amendments to various rules regarding mediation and case evaluation; (4) amendments to juvenile court standards and administrative guidelines for the care of children; (5) an amendment to MCR 2.516 that would require judges to instruct jurors that they are prohibited from using computers or cell phones during trial; (6) one of two proposed amendments to MCR 8.115 regarding attorneys and cell phones in the courthouse; and (7) a proposed amendment to MCR 3.01 regarding funds exempt from garnishment.  Additional information can be found on the Court’s website, here.  An article about the Michigan Civil Rights Commission’s opposition to the proposed rule regarding courtroom attire can be found here.

On Tuesday, April 28, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied 121 applications for leave to appeal; denied 14 motions for reconsideration; held six applications in abeyance until the Supreme Court’s disposition of other, pending cases; and administratively closed one case for failure to pay a partial filing fee.  The Court also vacated in part and remanded People v. Baisden, Case No. 137890, for the Court of Appeals to reconsider the defendant’s claims of sentencing error, claims that the Court of Appeals had treated inconsistently in its memorandum opinion.  And finally, the Court remanded People v. Brown, Case No. 137705, for the Court of Appeals to consider as on leave granted, though the Supreme Court gave no additional direction as to how the remand should proceed.

On Friday, April 24, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal in five cases, denied a motion to waive fees in another case, and ordered oral argument on whether to grant leave the five cases discussed below.  In each case, the Court gave the parties 42 days to submit supplemental briefing, all but guaranteeing that these arguments will occur in the Court’s 2009-2010 term.

Finally, the Court denied leave to appeal in VanSlembrouck v. Halperin, No. 135893, after hearing oral argument on whether to grant leave to appeal.  In VanSlembrouck, a medical malpractice action, the parties addressed 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 focused their arguments on whether MCL § 600.5851(7) is a savings provision, rather than a statute limitation.  The Court’s denial of leave affirms the Court of Appeals’ decision that the plaintiffs are entitled to benefit from the tolling provision in MCL § 600.5856(c).   Justices Corrigan, Markman, and Young dissented.  This decision may be a harbinger of a relaxation of the Court’s jurisprudence strictly applying statutes of limitation.  Our earlier post on VanSlembrouck is here. Read more »

In In re Parole of Cecil Hawkins, No. 138723, the Michigan Supreme Court denied Hawkins’ motion to waive filing fees because MCL  § 600.2963 requires a prisoner to pay all civil action filing fees.

On April 21, 2009, the Court of Appeals published an opinion in Florence Beach v. Township of Lima, Case No. 274920, holding that an adverse possession claim could be maintained with respect to an irrevocable easement created by a private dedication.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision allowing the adverse possession claim to proceed as a quiet title action, rather than requiring that an action to vacate platted streets be brought under the Land Division Act (LDA).  The Court of Appeals further held that although a party is not required to bring an adverse possession claim under the LDA, it may do so.  In light of the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent decision in Tomecek v. Bavas, the Court of Appeals concluded that although the LDA cannot alter or create substantive property interests, an LDA action can nonetheless be used to alter the plat map to give legal recognition to an alteration of substantive property interests.

On April 22, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal in fourteen cases and held the case of People v. Lewis, Case No. 136622, in abeyance pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.  Like Melendez-Diaz, Lewis concerns the issue of whether an autopsy report is testimonial under Crawford v. Washington.  In Lewis, the Court must determine whether the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right under the confrontation clause was violated where the trial court properly admitted an autopsy report, authored by two nontestifying medical examiners, through the testimony of a third medical examiner from the same lab.  A copy of the Court’s order can be found here.

 In People v. Pinkey, Case No. 138550, in lieu of granting appeal, the Court remanded the case to the Berrien County Circuit Court for reconsideration of the conditions of the appeal bond.  The Court ordered the trial court within 21 days to articulate the reasons for imposing a “24/7” curfew on the defendant.  The trial court was further ordered to file copies of the transcript and any related documents with the clerk of the Supreme Court.  The Court retained jurisdiction.  A copy of the Court’s order can be found here.