One Court of Justice

On Wednesday January 27, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court denied 19 applications for leave to appeal, denied the petitioner-appellants’ motion for reconsideration in the case of In re Brandon Gavin Handorf, Case Nos. 139742, 139753, 139754, and adopted the recommendation of the Judicial Tenure Commission in In re Nebel, Case No. 140203, and In re Sanders, Case No. 140202.  The Court also took substantive action in three civil and three criminal cases, which are discussed after the jump.

In People v. Holloway, Case No. 139390, the Court ordered that the defendant’s application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2009 Court of Appeals opinion would be held in abeyance pending the Court’s decision in People v. Redd, Case No. 138161.  Our post discussing the issues raised People v. Redd can be found here.  The Court’s order in Holloway is here.

The Court remanded People v. Hammond, Case No. 139705, to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.  The Court of Appeals originally denied defendant’s application for leave to appeal on July 29, 2009.   A copy of the Court’s order can be found here.

The Court peremptorily reversed part of the Court of Appeals’ decision in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Bouschor, Case Nos. 137986, 137988, 137990.  Specifically, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals concerning the plaintiff’s claim of legal malpractice against the defendant law firm, because there were outstanding issues of material fact regarding the firm’s potential legal malpractice liability.  The Court reinstated the judgment of the Chippewa Circuit Court denying the defendant’s motion for summary disposition.

In addition to peremptorily reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision with respect to the legal malpractice claim, in lieu of granting appeal the Court also affirmed the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the trial court’s denial of defendant Bouschor’s motion for summary disposition.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the defendant, as an executive officer of a sovereign Indian nation and not the State of Michigan, is not entitled to qualified governmental immunity pursuant to MCL § 691.1407(2).  In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal was denied.  A copy of the Court’s order discussing the legal malpractice issue is here, and the order concerning the question of governmental immunity can be found here.

In People v. McMullan, Case No. 139209, the Court granted leave to consider whether a rational juror could conclude that the defendant acted with a lesser mens rea of gross negligence or an intent to injure, and not malice, thus warranting an instruction on involuntary manslaughter.  The Court invited the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, and the Criminal Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan to file briefs amicus curiae.  Justice Corrigan concurred in the order granting leave and directed the parties to address whether, even assuming the defendant’s version of the events are true, the facts nonetheless show that the defendant acted with malice because he intended to do an act in wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that his actions would cause death or great bodily harm to another.  The Court’s order is here.

Finally, in Baum Family Trust v. Babel, Case No. 139617, the Court granted leave to consider two issues.  First, the Court will determine whether the fee title resulting from the dedication of land for public use in a plat under the 1887 Plat Act, in land that runs along a lakeshore, conveys the riparian rights to the lake or the county, or, whether the conveyance is limited to the public uses of the road as a road.  Second, the Court will consider whether the deeds of the front-tier landowners have to have specific language granting riparian rights and if case law that states the front-tier lots adjacent to a road running along a waterway have riparian rights unless such rights are expressly excluded, is still valid.  The Michigan Association of Counties was invited to file a brief amicus curiae.  A copy of the Court’s order can be found here.