One Court of Justice

On July 30, 2009, the Court of Appeals published its opinion in People v. Gayheart, affirming the appellant’s conviction for first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder.  The appellant, Dannie Gayheart, argued that because the victim’s body was discovered in Indiana, roughly 100 feet from the Michigan border, insufficient proof existed to support jurisdiction and venue in Michigan.  Further, Gayheart contended that Michigan’s criminal law violated his due process rights by authorizing his trial in Michigan for conduct occurring partly outside the state.  Finally, Gayheart challenged as unduly prejudicial the introduction into evidence of photographs of the victim.  The Court rejected each challenge. Read more »

On July 30, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its opinion in Jackson v. Estate of Green, No. 136423.  The Court considered two issues:  whether an action to partition jointly owned real estate survives the death of the person who filed the action, and the point in time at which a cause of action accrues for a breach of verbal loan that did not include explicit terms for repayment.  The background and the Court of Appeals’ holdings are discussed here.  In plurality opinions, the Court affirmed the results reached by the Court of Appeals. Read more »

On July 30, 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in People v. Patton, No. 283921, holding that a criminal defendant incarcerated in another jurisdiction was not entitled to dismissal of a Michigan charge against him by detainer under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), even though the federal authorities violated IAD by failing to inform the defendant of the detainer for six months.  The Court followed the reasoning of five federal circuits (including the Sixth Circuit) and held that because the IAD only expressly provides a remedy of dismissal for certain enumerated violations in Articles IV(e) and V(c), a violation of the requirement in Article III(c) that the defendant be “promptly inform[ed]” of the detainer could not be interpreted to provide a basis for dismissal.  The Court also held that the defendant was not denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial or denied due process by a three-and-a-half-year delay between the filing of the criminal complaint and the issuance of the detainer; and that the defendant was not entitled to credit for time served during the delay.  Read more »

On July 30, 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in USA Cash #1 Inc. v. City of Saginaw, No. 279378.  In 2006, the city of Saginaw enacted an ordinance requiring for-profit, secondhand merchants to report electronically their receipt of used personal property within 48 hours and to pay a $2 fee per transaction.  Two secondhand merchants challenged the ordinance, arguing that the ordinance was invalid for three reasons: (1) the secondhand junk dealers act, MCL § 445.10 et seq., preempted the ordinance; (2) the ordinance violated Michigan’s equal-protection clause; and (3) the ordinance violated the Headlee Amendment, Mich. Const. art.  9, § 31.  The trial court rejected these arguments, upholding the ordinance, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

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 »

The Michigan Supreme Court issued one order yesterday, denying a motion to waive fees in Peoples v. Department of Corrections, No. 139382, and barring the plaintiff from filing further appeals until the fees were paid.

On July 29, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bush v. Shabahang, Nos. 136617, 136653, and136983, in a 4 to 3 opinion authored by Justice Hathaway.  In Bush, the Court considered two issues of jurisprudential significance: (1) whether plaintiff’s allegedly defective notice of intent (“NOI”) tolled the relevant limitations period; and (2) whether a plaintiff could file a medical malpractice action just 154 days after a NOI based on a defective response to that notice.  The Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part, and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling in part, and concluded that the 2004 amendments to MCL §600.5856, significantly clarified the proper role of a NOI and makes it clear that a timely filed NOI tolls the statute of limitations, despite any errors or defects.  Additionally, the Court held that where a defendant fails to make a good-faith attempt to reply to the plaintiff’s NOI, a plaintiff may take advantage of the 154-day waiting period provided in MCL §600.2912b(8).  A copy of the Court’s opinion can be found here. Read more »

On July 29, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied one complaint for superintending control in the matter of Schock v Court of Appeals, Case No. 139203.  Plaintiff had requested that the Court of Appeals allow a media organization to videotape the oral arguments.  The Court held that since oral arguments already occurred on July 14, 2009, and because the Court of Appeals granted Plaintiff’s request to have a camera in the attorney waiting room to “pool in” with the courtroom television camera, the controversy is now moot.   A copy of the Court’s order can be found here.

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Weaver noted that before this case became moot, she would have denied the complaint for superintending control because the Court can only grant superintending control when the Court of Appeals has violated a clear legal duty.  Here, the Court of Appeals had discretion whether to grant Plaintiff’s request to videotape the oral arguments, and its denial of Plaintiff’s request did not violate a clear legal duty.  Justice Weaver also stated that while she knows Plaintiff personally, she is neither biased nor prejudiced for or against Plaintiff and, therefore, there are no grounds for disqualification.

In a press release issued today, the Michigan Supreme Court announced that it will be collaborating with the State Bar of Michigan to post video online of Michigan Supreme Court oral arguments and conferences within 24 to 28 hours after the hearing or conference.  The “Virtual Court” web page can be found at http://www.michbar.org/courts/virtualcourt.cfm.  The Press Release can be found here.

On July 28, 2009. the Michigan Court of Appeals published an opinion in TMW Enterprises Inc. v. Department of Treasury, No. 284446, holding that an S corporation is a “corporation” within the meaning of section 3(3) of the Single Business Tax Act (SBTA), MCL 208.3(3), and therefore not entitled to the casual-transaction exclusion provided to persons “other than a corporation” in MCL 208.3(2).  Read more »