This case concerned whether an automobile insurance policy issued by Progressive Michigan Insurance Company provided coverage to its insured, Christopher Sneden, for an accident that occurred while he was driving a commercial milk truck that exceeded the policy's weight limit for a covered vehicle. The trial court found no coverage because the policy's definition of an "insured person" required the insured to be using a covered vehicle. The Court of Appeals reversed, adopting a broader reading of the policy language that did not tie coverage to the insured's own vehicle. On October 1, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, allowing the Court of Appeals' interpretation to stand; two justices dissented, arguing that the policy must be read in context to require use of a covered vehicle and that the Court of Appeals' view was unreasonable.
The case concerned the criminal conviction of defendant Richard Allen Frye for sexually abusing his daughter and three stepdaughters, for which he received a life sentence. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal from the Court of Appeals judgment that had affirmed the conviction. The majority concluded that the questions presented did not warrant further review by the Court. A dissent noted an undisputed error in the admission of expert testimony that improperly vouched for the victims' veracity, in violation of prior precedent, and argued that leave should be granted to determine whether the error was harmless in light of credibility issues and other evidence.
This case involves a lawsuit brought by Ronald Thorne, a legally incapacitated person through his guardian Margaret Ann Wilson, along with intervening plaintiff Blue Cross Blue Shield, against Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (doing business as Farmer Jack) for personal injuries. The Michigan Supreme Court considered an application for leave to appeal a March 2010 Court of Appeals judgment affirming dismissal in the Macomb Circuit Court. Rather than deciding the appeal outright, the Court ordered oral argument on whether to grant the application and directed the parties to address how to distinguish an ordinary negligence claim from a premises liability claim under these facts, as well as whether and how the open and obvious doctrine applies to each type of claim. The Court also invited amicus briefs from the Michigan Association for Justice, the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, and other interested parties.
In People v. Hill, the Michigan Supreme Court considered whether a defendant who downloaded child sexually abusive material from the Internet and burned it onto CD-Rs for personal use could be convicted under MCL 750.145c(2) of arranging for, producing, making, or financing such material, a 20-year felony, or only under the lesser 4-year felony for knowing possession in MCL 750.145c(4). The Court of Appeals had upheld the higher conviction, but the Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the defendant could only be convicted of possession. The core reasoning was that the statute establishes a graduated scheme of offenses and punishments distinguishing those who originate the prohibited material from those who merely possess or copy it for personal use, and the terms 'produces' and 'makes' must be interpreted in light of this structure to exclude personal copying from the higher offense.
In Kyser v. Kasson Township, a property owner sued after the township denied her request to rezone land for gravel mining, arguing under the 'no very serious consequences' rule from Silva v. Ada Township that mining would not cause significant harm. The trial court and Court of Appeals applied that rule to invalidate the zoning restriction, but the Michigan Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that the rule is not constitutionally mandated, improperly encroaches on legislative zoning authority in violation of separation of powers, and was superseded by the exclusionary zoning statute in the Zoning Enabling Act. It remanded the case for further proceedings under standard zoning review standards.
The case involved a lawsuit by Trina Lee Beattie against Mark P. Mickalich for injuries sustained while saddling a horse owned by the defendant. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' grant of summary disposition to the defendant and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that a plaintiff is not required to plead in avoidance of the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA) limitations and that the EALA does not abolish negligence claims against horse owners, as it expressly allows liability for negligent acts or omissions that proximately cause injury. The plaintiff had provided documentary evidence supporting a negligence claim that would be admissible at trial.