One Court of Justice

A friend gave permission to the plaintiff in Rambin v. Allstate Ins. Co., to drive a motorcycle, which the friend claimed he owned.  Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, the friend had stolen the motorcycle.  The plaintiff was injured in an accident while driving the motorcycle, and he sued for personal protection insurance benefits under the No-Fault Act.  The trial court granted summary disposition to the insurance companies, and the plaintiff appealed.  The Michigan Court of Appeals considered MCL 500.3113(a), which denies PIP benefits to a person who “was using a motor vehicle or motorcycle which he or she had taken unlawfully . . . .”  The court concluded, in light of recent Michigan Supreme Court precedent, that this clause required the person to have actually taken the vehicle in violation of the Michigan Penal Code.  Therefore, the plaintiff was not precluded from receiving benefits, because he did not take the motorcycle unlawfully.  The court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition, but noted that whether the plaintiff is entitled to PIP benefits, and if so, from whom, remained issues for the trial court to decide.  Judge Krause concurred in the result, but dissented to note disagreement with the court’s lengthy analysis of prior case law, which she said is “unnecessary” and at best, “dicta.”

In People v. Brown the Michigan Court of Appeals considered the effect of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) on the “probable cause” requirement for issuing search warrants.  The defendant sought to suppress evidence of his marijuana growing activities that the police recovered while executing a search warrant on his home.  The search warrant was issued based on a police officer’s affidavit, which described how the officer found a piece of fresh marijuana in the defendant’s trash, along with mail confirming the defendant’s residence at that address.  The officer did not check to see if the defendant was a qualifying patient or primary caregiver under the MMMA.  The defendant argued that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable because the MMMA made it legal to possess and grow certain amounts of marijuana.  The Court of Appeals disagreed, reasoning that the MMMA did not abrogate the prohibition against marijuana; it merely provided a “very limited, highly restricted exception” to the statutory proscription.  Therefore, the court concluded that in order to establish probable cause, an affidavit supporting a search warrant “need not provide facts from which a magistrate could conclude that a suspect’s marijuana-related activities are specifically not legal under the MMMA.”  The court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for manufacturing marijuana. 

In addition to three orders to granting mini oral argument on ballot proposals rejected by the Board of State Canvassers (discussed in the previous blog), the Michigan Supreme Court also entered an order denying a prisoner’s motion to waive fees and implementing a payment plan for the fees.

On August 30, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court will hear mini oral arguments on whether the Board of State Canvassers properly rejected three different November ballot proposals, all of which call for a vote of the people on whether to amend Michigan’s Constitution.  In Protect Our Jobs v. Board of State Canvassers, the Court of Appeals decided two days ago to reverse of the Board’s rejection of a proposal that would enshrine a right to collective bargaining into Michigan’s Constitution.  Our blog on that decision can be found here.  Union organizers hope to persuade the Michigan Supreme Court to affirm. Citizens for More Jobs v. Secretary of State concerns a proposal to approve eight private casinos by constitutional amendment, raise the casino tax, and ensure the casinos’ rights to obtain liquor licenses.  The proposal failed to pass the Board not for lack of votes but for lack of bi-partisan support.  Backers seek to overturn the Board’s decision without prior review by the Court of Appeals.  Finally, Michigan Alliance for Prosperity v. Board of State Canvassers concerns a proposal to require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a majority vote of the electorate to raise state taxes.  Supporters’ application comes prior to a decision by the Court of Appeals.  In all of these applications, a central issue is whether the proposal satisfies the Constitution’s requirement to republish existing constitutional provisions which would be altered or abrogated by the proposal.

As we reported earlier, the Michigan Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeals to decide whether a petition to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot met the necessary requirements.  The proposed amendment would create a right to organize and collectively bargain with a public or private employer to the fullest extent not preempted by federal law.  In Protect Our Jobs v Board of State Canvassers, the Court of Appeals granted, in a divided, unpublished decision, a writ of mandamus directing that the proposal to be added to the ballot.  Judge O’Connell dissented.

Read more »

The Michigan Supreme Court denied a prisoner’s motion to waive fees, because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees.

In Protect Mi Constitution v. Secretary of State, No. 145698, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals and vacated that court’s order of mandamus in lieu of granting leave to appeal.  The Court held that a ballot proposal that seeks voter approval of a constitutional amendment is governed by Article 12, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution, not Article 4, Section 25.  The Court held that the latter applies to amendments of laws, not amendments to the Michigan Constitution.  The Court further held that there was no showing of a failure to comply with Article 12, Section 2, and it accordingly reversed the Court of Appeals, which had entered an order of mandamus after applying Article 4, Section 25. Read more »

In Frankfurth v Detroit Medical Center, No. 305500, the Michigan Court of Appeals examined whether a circuit court may hear a motion for reconsideration of its order transferring venue, after the court has entered its order transferring venue.  The Court held that the circuit court could not do so, because immediately following its order the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.  

Read more »

On August 22, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court denied one application for leave to appeal and one prisoner’s motion to waive fees.

The Michigan Supreme Court granted immediate consideration and ordered the Court of Appeals to decide Protect Our Jobs v. Board of State Canvassers by August 27, 2012.  Protect Our Jobs organizers would propose a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to enshrine the right to collective bargaining in Michigan’s constitution.  The Board of Canvassers rejected the proposal because it was too sweeping for a 100-word summary.  Protect our Jobs sued to overturn the Board’s decision.  The case is scheduled for oral argument this morning in the Court of Appeals.

The court also entered two other orders.  The first denies waiver of filing fees, allows partial initial payment and a payment schedule, but bars further appeals in the Michigan Supreme Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.  The second order directs the clerk to close the file for failure of the appellant to provide a certified copy of institutional account under MCL § 600.2963(1).