One Court of Justice

On July 26, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court denied 149 applications for leave to appeal, denied two bypass applications for leave, and remanded one case for the ministerial task of correcting a pre-sentence investigation report.

On Monday, July 19, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered the interim suspension of 12th District Judge James M. Justin pending expedited review by the Judicial Tenure Commission and the Michigan Supreme Court .  Chief Justice Kelly and Justice Cavanagh dissented from the order, and Justice Weaver did not participate.  In McCarthy v. Scofield, Nos. 138034 & 140328, Justices Weaver, Corrigan, Young, and Markman denied the plaintiff-appellant’s motions to disqualify them.

In an extraordinary development, the Michigan Supreme Court dismissed the putative class action brought by indigent criminal defendants against the State’s public defender system.  In May, the Court issued a unanimous order holding that a decision on the defendants’ motion for summary disposition was premature.  On defendants’ motion for reconsideration, the Court adopted the dissent from the Court of Appeals and concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable. Chief Justice Kelly and Justices Cavanagh and Hathaway dissented. Read more »

The Court took substantive peremptory action in two cases, ordered oral argument on the application in two cases, and granted leave to appeal to address a criminal-sentencing issue.  All five cases are discussed below: 

Lawrence M. Clarke, Inc. v. Richco Construction, Inc.:  The Court ordered oral argument on the application.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s refusal to set aside a default judgment where the plaintiff obtained leave from the court to effect service by alternate means and the defendants failed to present the necessary affidavits to show a meritorious defense.

In re W Minors:  The Court ordered oral argument on the application.  The Court of Appeals majority affirmed the decision of Michigan Children’s Institute’s superintendent denying consent to adopt and dismissing the adoption petitions filed by the Martins, the W minors’ former foster parents.  Judge Shapiro dissented, concluding that the Martins had been deprived of their ability to adopt the W minors because of an error by the Department of Human Services of Genesee County, and would have remanded the case to the trial court for rehearing. Read more »

The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal in Rockford v. 63rd District Court, No. 140541.  The City of Rockford had challenged Kent County’s plan to have both of the 63rd District’s judges sit in a single location.  The trial court and the Court of Appeals had both rejected Rockford’s challenge concluding that the County was free to require the judges to sit in the same location.  Our earlier post on the Court of Appeals’ decision is here.  Justice Weaver would have granted leave to appeal.

On July 12, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court denied one prisoner motion to waive filing fees.

On Monday, June 28, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court (1) denied four bypass applications for leave; (2) denied 170 applications for leave; (3) denied six motions for reconsideration; (4) denied one motion for peremptory reversal; (5) held three cases in abeyance pending a decision in similar cases; (6) granted a motion to submit supplemental photographs; and (7) denied one motion for peremptory reversal.  The Court also granted in part the prosecutor’s motion for rehearing in People v. Richmond, No. 136648, stating that the prosecution may refile the charges against the defendant and, if necessary, file an interlocutory appeal to challenge the underlying suppression ruling.  (Our discussion of the Richmond merits opinion can be found here.)  Finally, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals opinion and reinstated an adjudication of delinquency in People v. Abdullah, No. 139586, as the adjudication was properly made under MCR 750.520d(1)(c).

The Michigan Supreme Court took substantive action in six cases:

In re P.M. (Department of Human Services v. Mullins), No. 140983:  The Court granted oral argument on the application.

Iron Mountain Information Management, Inc. v. Naftaly, Nos. 140817-140824:  The Court granted leave to appeal limited to the issue of whether the circuit courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over appeals from a decision of the state tax commission regarding property classification.  The Court ordered that the case be argued and submitted with Midland Cogeneration Venture Ltd. v. Naftaly, No. 140814.

Midland Cogeneration Venture Ltd. v. Naftaly, No. 140814:  The Court granted leave to appeal to address the same issue as Iron Mountain.

People v. McCauley, No. 140422:  The Court ordered oral argument on the application to address whether a defendant can raise a challenge to the effective assistance of his counsel during the plea-bargaining process where the defendant rejected the plea offer and subsequently received a fair trial, and if so, what remedies should be available to the defendant.  The Court invited amicus briefs from the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan.  Our post on the Court of Appeals’ decision conditionally vacating the defendant’s sentence is here.

People v. Breidenbach, No. 140153:  The Court ordered oral argument on the application to address three issues:  (1) whether the Court should reconsider the rule of People v. Helzer, 404 Mich. 410 (1978), that a determination of sexual delinquency is a separate, alternative form of sentencing rather than a penalty enhancement; (2) whether the defendant waived or forfeited the right to a second jury’s determination of his status as a sexual delinquent; and (3) whether any error was harmless or harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  Again, the Court invited the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan to submit amicus briefs.  

Friend v. Friend, No. 139165:  In lieu of granting leave to appeal after having heard argument on the application, the Court remanded the case to the Houghton County Circuit Court for clarification as to whether the alimony award was alimony in gross or periodic alimony.  The Court further ordered that as a precondition of the trial court clarifying the nature of its award, the plaintiff purge herself of any outstanding findings of contempt within 90 days.  The Court denied leave to appeal on all other issues, including whether the Court should adopt the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine.  Justices Corrigan, Markman, and Young dissented and would have applied the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine and condition consideration of the appeal on plaintiff’s compliance with trial court’s orders.

The Court also denied leave to appeal in six cases.

On Monday, June 14, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court denied one motion to waive fees in a prisoner’s appeal.

On Monday, June 7, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court administratively closed two cases for the non-payment of filing fees.

The Michigan Supreme Court resolved three cases by peremptory orders reversing the Court of Appeals’ decisions and ordered oral argument on the application for two cases in its next term. 

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision in Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash, No. 139794.  In Kachudas, the plaintiff slipped and fell at an auto wash on a winter day and sued the company that operated the facility.  The Court of Appeals concluded that the open-and-obvious defense was not available to the defendant because the plaintiff’s claims sounded in general liability and not premises liability.  Four justices of the Michigan Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that the plaintiff alleged injury because of a condition of the land and thus the plaintiff’s claims were for premises liability.  The Court further found that a person of average intelligence would anticipate that spraying water on a day with average temperatures between 11 and 24 degrees would likely lead to the formation of ice.  Accordingly, the Court also concluded that the danger was open and obvious.  The Court peremptorily reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and reinstated the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to the defendant.  Chief Justice Kelly and Justices Cavanagh and Hathaway dissented.

The Court apparently decided to revisit the open-and-obvious doctine by ordering oral argument on the application in Ahola v. Genessee Christian School, No. 140447.  The Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, concluded that faults to the defendant school’s steps that caused the plaintiff’s injury were not open and obvious despite the plaintiff’s navigation of those steps several hours earlier because the steps were unlit at the time of the injury.  Read more »

On May 17, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court denied one prisoner petition to waive filing fees and barred the petitioner from filing any further appeals until the entry fee in the subject case was paid in full.

On May 11, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court granted one motion for temporary admission to practice; granted three motions seeking extensions of time to file briefs and one motion for reinstatement of the right to oral argument; and granted the Michigan Association for Justice’s motions for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in two cases.

The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in Tus v. Hurt, No. 139769.  The case arose after a mortgage company foreclosed on a house nearly 15 years after the last payment had been made and despite the fact that the house had been sold to a new owner.  The Court of Appeals ruled that the circuit court erred by quieting title in the name of the new owners who had failed to timely exercise their right of redemption because the circuit court’s action was an attempt to do equity contrary to the requirement of statutory law.  In the order granting leave, the Michigan Supreme Court instructed the parties to “include among the issues to be briefed the effect, if any, on this case of Brydges v. Emmendorfer, 311 Mich. 274, 279 (1945) (holding that “[t]he statute of limitations does not control the question of laches in equitable actions”) and Stokes v. Millen Roofing Co., 466 Mich. 660, 671-72 (2002) (concluding that courts should not avoid the application of a statute under the guise of equity because a statutory penalty is excessively punitive or harsh).”  The Court invited two sections of the State Bar of Michigan as well as the Michigan Association of Mortgage Professionals, the Michigan Mortgage Lenders Association, the Michigan Association of Realtors, the Michigan Association of Community Bankers, the Michigan Bankers Association, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, the University of Michigan Law School General Clinic, and the Michigan Association for Justice to file briefs amicus curiae.

Justice Young issued an order denying the Attorney Grievance Administrator’s motion for him to participate in Grievance Administrator v. Miller, No. 140081.  Justice Young declined to participate in whether to grant leave in Miller because the grievance arose from Shelden Miller’s alleged unethical conduct while handling an employment lawsuit against AAA.  While the lawsuit was pending, Justice Young was general counsel for AAA.  Citing the new recusal standard, Justice Young refused to participate in the case even though his tenuous connection to the underlying litigation did not create any actual bias against any party.  Justice Young explained, “I believe that no basis exists for my disqualification in this case, but I chose the safest course under the new amorphous disqualification rule by voluntarily declining to participate in order to avoid a strategic or politically motivated motion to disqualify me, followed by the second guessing of my colleagues.”  The result of Justice Young’s decision not to participate is that the Court was unable to muster the four votes necessary to grant leave to appeal and thus leave was denied over the dissent of Justices Corrigan, Markman, and Weaver.

After oral argument on the application in Brooks v. Starr Commonwealth, No. 139144, the Michigan Supreme Court decided the Youth Rehabilitation Services Act does not create an actionable duty to the general public.  Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the circuit court’s order granting summary disposition to the defendants.  Chief Justice Kelly and Justices Cavanagh and Hathaway dissented.  Read more »

 On May 6, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court denied seven applications for leave to appeal.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order in the case of Michigan Department of Transportation v. Detroit International Bridge Co. and Safeco Insurance Co. of America, Case Nos. 140991, 140927, and 140928, staying the enforcement of the February 1, 2010 order of the Wayne County Circuit Court and staying further proceedings in that court.   The Detroit International Bridge Company’s application for leave to appeal the March 17, 2010 Court of Appeals order remains pending.  A copy of the Court’s order is here.

Yesterday, the Michigan Supreme Court issued one order amending to correct a clerical error in a previously issued order.

Despite the extensive fanfare surrounding the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision to hear Duncan v. Michigan, No. 139345, the Court remanded the case involving constitutional challenges to the State’s court-appointed defense counsel program on procedural grounds.  In Duncan, the government moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s constitutional challenges to the funding and administration of the court-appointed defense counsel programs in Berrien, Genesee, and Muskegon Counties on governmental immunity and other grounds.  The plaintiffs moved for class certification.  The Ingham County Circuit Court denied the government’s motion for summary disposition on the pleadings and granted the motion for class certification.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in a lengthy decision.  The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, but after oral argument, the Court vacated the trial court’s order granting class certification and remanded the matter to the Ingham Circuit Court for consideration of the motion in light of Henry v. Dow Chemical Co., 484 Mich. 483 (2009).  The Court further affirmed denial of the government’s motion for summary disposition, albeit for different reasons.  Citing the fact that the case is still at the pleadings stage, the Court concluded that the motion for summary disposition was premature.  The Court’s order deprives the Court of Appeals’ decision of precedential and law-of-the-case effect, preserving the government’s arguments for summary disposition after discovery.

In Dadd v. Mount Hope Church, Case No. 139223, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the jury verdict for the plaintiff.  The Court concluded that the jury’s finding of malice overcame the defendant’s claim of a church-related, qualified-privilege defense to claims of slander and libel. Read more »