Case Name
& Docket Number
|
Calendar
Number |
At Issue |
Status |
In Re Ayden Rood, Minor
136849
Click on docket
number(s) to
view Briefs
in Acrobat
|
1 |
A prisoner, whose parental rights to his daughter were terminated, argued that he did not receive adequate notice of the proceedings from the family court or from the Department of Human Services. DHS argued that even if it did not make adequate efforts to contact the father or place his child with him, the father’s history of domestic violence, in addition to his failure to contact DHS for over a year or pursue visitation with his daughter, supported termination of his parental rights. The Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding DHS failed to make reasonable efforts to contact the father and provide him with services. Did DHS fail to prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence?
Background: |
Pending
Oral
Argument |
Roberson Builders
v
Larson
132363
Click on docket
number(s) to
view Briefs
in Acrobat |
2 |
A contractor sued a homeowner for unpaid charges under a contract for home remodeling. The circuit court dismissed the contractor’s lawsuit because the contractor did not have a residential construction license, but the case proceeded to trial on the homeowner’s counterclaims against the contractor. The circuit court did allow the contractor to assert a setoff against the homeowner’s claims for work the contractor performed. But the Court of Appeals ruled that the contractor was not entitled to a setoff because it was unlicensed and therefore barred from seeking “compensation” under MCL 339.2412(1). Is a claim for setoff a counterclaim or an affirmative defense? Does asserting a claim for a setoff as a defense to another party’s claim amount to “bring[ing] or maintain[ing] an action in a court of this state for the collection of compensation” under MCL 339.2412(1)?
Background: |
Pending
Oral
Argument |
People
v
Shahideh (Amir)
135495
Click on docket
number(s) to
view Briefs
in Acrobat |
3 |
The defendant was charged with first-degree murder after beating his girlfriend to death with a baseball bat. His attorney asked the court to permit an independent psychological examination of the defendant, but the court denied the motion because the defendant had not first filed a notice of intent to assert an insanity defense as required by MCL 768.20a. Did the trial court err? Should the court have allowed the independent examination on the basis that the defendant’s counsel was merely exploring a possible defense?
Background: |
Pending
Oral
Argument |
Odom
v
Wayne County
133433
Click on docket
number(s) to
view Briefs
in Acrobat |
4 |
The defendant, a deputy sheriff, arrested the plaintiff for disorderly conduct after suspecting her of prostitution. The plaintiff sued the defendant for false imprisonment and false arrest. The deputy sheriff sought to have the case dismissed on the basis of governmental immunity under MCL 691.1407, but the trial court denied her motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Where a government employee is being sued for the intentional torts of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, can the employee assert governmental immunity?
Background: |
Pending
Oral
Argument |
USF&G
v
MI Catastrophic Claims Ass'n
133466
133468
Click on docket
number(s) to
view Briefs
in Acrobat |
5 |
Does § 3104 of the no-fault act (MCL 500.3104) require the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association to indemnify the plaintiff insurers for 100 percent of the actual loss amounts above the $250,000 statutory threshold that the insurers were obligated to pay in PIP benefits, without regard to whether the payments were reasonable?
Background: |
Pending
Oral
Argument |
Thursday, October 2, 2008
|
Case Name
& Docket Number
|
Calendar
Number
|
At Issue |
Status |
Tomacek
v
Bavas, et al
134665
Click on docket
number(s) to
view Briefs
in Acrobat |
6 |
The plaintiffs and individual defendants are lot owners in the same plat. The plaintiffs seek to build a house on a lot and need utilities to do so; they sought a utility easement under their drive easement. The plaintiffs argued that an easement for utilities was an easement by necessity and also that the defendants used the only other easement in the plat for both a drive easement and a utilities easement. The trial court ordered a revision of the plat to allow for an easement for utilities to occupy the same space as the drive easement. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Does the Land Division Act provide a court with the power to make substantive changes to property rights? Did the plaintiffs establish an easement by necessity?
Background: |
Pending
Oral
Argument |
People
v
Miller (Michael)
135989
Click on docket
number(s) to
view Briefs
in Acrobat |
7 |
The defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC). Before sentencing, the defendant’s attorney learned that one of the jurors had two prior CSC convictions, but had concealed that fact during jury selection. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial, finding no evidence that the defendant suffered actual prejudice as a result of the juror’s involvement; the Court of Appeals reversed, saying that the defendant was entitled to a new trial. Did the defendant have to show that he was prejudiced by the juror’s misconduct? Should the juror’s failure to identify himself as a felon – which would disqualify him from serving on a jury – constitute structural error that would require reversal of his conviction?
Background: |
Pending
Oral
Argument |
In Re Hultgren
136880
Click on docket
number(s) to
view Briefs
in Acrobat
|
8 |
A judge met with a defendant in a collection case that was pending before another judge in the same court; the defendant claimed that a different person with the same name had incurred the debt. The judge then communicated with the office of an attorney involved in that case, including writing to the attorney on court stationery and asking the lawyer to “look into the matter and take whatever action is appropriate.” Did the judge violate judicial ethics rules?
Background: |
Pending
Oral
Argument |
People
v
Parks (Ricky)
126509
Click on docket
number(s) to
view Briefs
in Acrobat |
Oral
Argument on Application |
The defendant in this criminal sexual conduct case sought to introduce evidence that his accuser, his nine-year-old stepdaughter, had also accused her grandfather of sexual abuse when she was four or five years old. Is this evidence admissible, or is it barred by the rape shield statute, MCL 750.520j? Must the defendant be allowed to introduce the evidence of the child’s prior accusations in order to preserve his constitutional right of confrontation and to present a defense?
Background: |
Pending
Oral
Argument |
Moore
v
Secura Ins
135028
Click on docket
number(s) to
view Briefs
in Acrobat |
Oral
Argument on Application |
In this first-party no-fault case, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and the trial court awarded the plaintiffs close to $80,000 in attorney fees and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Did the trial court err in awarding the plaintiffs attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1)? Did the trial court err in determining the amount of attorney fees?
Background: |
Pending
Oral
Argument |
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Oral Argument will be heard at 1:30 p.m.
at
Malcolm Field Theatre in Curtiss Hall on the Campus of
Saginaw Valley State University
|
In Re Raymond Estate
134461
Click on docket
number(s) to
view Briefs
in Acrobat
|
Oral
Argument on Application |
Does the testator’s will allow only her living siblings and her husband’s living siblings to inherit from her – or can the descendants of the couple’s deceased siblings also inherit? At stake is who may share in an almost $800,000 inheritance.
Background:
|
Pending
Oral
Argument |
