One Court of Justice

The Michigan Supreme Court granted the application for leave to appeal in Henry v. Laborers Local 1191.  The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed:  (1) whether the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), or the federal Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), preempt Michigan’s Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), if the challenged conduct actually or arguably falls within the jurisdiction of the NLRA or the LMRDA; (2) whether a union employee’s report to a public body regarding suspected illegal activity, or participation in an investigation of the same, is of only peripheral concern to the NLRA or the LMRDA such that the employee’s claims under the WPA are not preempted by federal law; and (3) whether the state’s interest in enforcing the WPA is so deeply rooted that, absent compelling congressional direction, courts cannot infer that Congress has deprived the state of the power to act.  The Court invited the Attorney General and the Labor and Employment Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan to file briefs amicus curiae.

In lieu of granting leave to appeal in People v. Arthur, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case to the Saginaw Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing regarding the decision to keep the defendant in shackles during his jury trial, and ordered the trial court to articulate with particularity, on the record, its reasons for requiring the defendant to do so.  The trial court shall receive evidence and make findings of fact regarding:  (1) whether the physical restraints were justified under Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005); and (2) whether those restraints were visible to any jurors, either during jury selection or afterward.  The Michigan Supreme Court retains jurisdiction. 

In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court:  in People v. Geierman, reversed, in part, the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the defendant’s conviction for felonious assault; in Hagerty v. Bd. of Manistee Cnty. Rd. Comm’rs, reversed the portion of the Court of Appeals judgment which held that the defendant is not entitled to governmental immunity, vacated the remainder of the court’s analysis, and remanded the case to the Manistee Circuit Court for entry of an order granting summary disposition to the defendant; in People v. Nelson, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the defendant’s remaining issues; in People v. Moore, vacated the Court of Appeals judgment’s resolution of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of that issue; in Wireless Toyz Franchise, LLC v. Clear Choice Commc’n, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion, and reinstated the order of the Oakland Circuit Court, which denied the defendants’ motion to vacate the arbitration award and confirmed the award; in People v. Nelson, remanded the case to the Oakland Circuit Court for the appointment of substitute appellate counsel; in People v. Wilding, remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted; in United Services Auto. Ass’n v. Rimbey, reversed in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the basis that the trial court clearly erred in awarding the defendants attorney fees because the plaintiff’s initial refusal to pay benefits was based on a legitimate question of factual uncertainty as to whether there was an “accidental bodily injury” under the no-fault act; and in Desai v. Desai, reversed, in part, the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and determined that the Washtenaw Circuit Court’s sanction award should be reduced because it included an amount for services that were not incurred in connection with the plaintiff’s complaint for divorce.

In People v. Walker, the Michigan Supreme Court directed the Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal.  The prosecutor shall pay particular attention to the defendant’s contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of the prosecutor’s offer of a particular plea bargain.  The prosecutor is to address whether the defendant is entitled to relief under Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. — (2012).  The application remains pending.