Stephen Markman

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.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

criminal law

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.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This Michigan Supreme Court case concerned judicial misconduct by 61st District Court Judge Benjamin H. Logan II, who as chief judge engaged in multiple phone calls with a county commissioner on the day another commissioner was arrested for aggravated domestic assault. The Judicial Tenure Commission issued a decision and recommendation, to which the judge consented via settlement agreement, stipulating to facts and agreeing to a sanction no greater than public censure. Applying the factors from In re Brown for assessing misconduct severity, and noting similarities to prior cases like In re Servaas, the Court imposed a public censure. The core reasoning focused on the consented findings of fact showing the judge's communications while the arrestee was in custody, weighed against standards distinguishing patterns of misconduct and impacts on justice administration.

criminal lawprocedure

The case DeCosta v. Gossage involved a lawsuit by plaintiff Donna B. DeCosta against defendants David D. Gossage, D.O., and Gossage Ye Center in Hillsdale Circuit Court under case number 06-000747-NM. Following the Michigan Supreme Court's May 25, 2010 decision reported at 486 Mich 116, the defendants filed a motion for rehearing. The Court denied the motion for rehearing. Justice Markman dissented, stating that the motion should be granted to vacate the prior decision and affirm the Court of Appeals based on the reasons in his earlier dissent, with Justices Corrigan and Young joining.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a lawsuit brought by plaintiff Barbara Zwiers against defendant Dr. Sean Growney and Michigan Pain Consultants, PC, in Kent Circuit Court under case number 08-002009-NO. The Court of Appeals issued a judgment on October 22, 2009, and the defendants sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal, explaining that it was not persuaded the questions presented required review by the Court. Three justices dissented and would have reversed the Court of Appeals judgment for reasons stated in a related case.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case arose from a 2003 van accident in which Shirley Pellegrino was killed and her husband Anthony injured; the defendant conceded liability, leaving only damages for trial. During jury selection, the trial court denied the defendant's peremptory challenge of an African-American juror to achieve a jury racially representative of the county, without finding a Batson violation. The Michigan Supreme Court held that such race-based denial of a peremptory challenge violates equal protection under the federal and state constitutions and MCR 2.511(F)(2), because jurors must be selected indifferently without regard to race. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for a new trial on damages only before a different judge.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned the admissibility at trial of a criminal defendant's silence in the face of an accusation, specifically whether such evidence constituted an improper tacit admission under the rule from People v. Bigge. The Michigan Supreme Court vacated a prior order and denied leave to appeal the Court of Appeals judgment that had reversed the trial court's grant of a new trial to defendant Anthony Marion Redd. A concurring opinion clarified that Bigge's rule is evidentiary in nature under MRE 801(d)(2)(B) and does not mandate automatic reversal or preclude waiver. A dissenting opinion maintained that a Bigge error is irreparable, cannot be waived, and required reinstatement of the new trial order.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by Ford Motor Credit Company to a Court of Appeals ruling in a tax dispute with the Michigan Department of Treasury involving the retroactive application of state tax laws and related due process claims under the Michigan Constitution. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal the lower court's judgment, concluding that the questions presented did not merit review by the Court. A dissent argued that leave should be granted to consider distinctions between state and federal constitutional standards for retroactive tax legislation and the significance of a subsequent legislature labeling prior laws as curative.

taxescivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns challenges by GMAC, LLC and Nuvell Credit Company, LLC to tax-related decisions by the Michigan Department of Treasury, specifically involving the retroactive application of state tax laws. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the companies' applications for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals judgments, concluding that the questions presented did not warrant further review by the Court. Justice Markman dissented, arguing that leave should be granted to examine whether the state Due Process Clause provides different protections against retroactive tax laws than the federal Constitution and whether a later legislature's claim that such laws are merely curative and reflective of original intent is relevant to the analysis.

taxesbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

The case involved plaintiff Patrick McCarthy, who was arrested and charged with sexual assault based on accusations that the complainants later admitted were fabricated, resulting in dismissal of the charges. He sought relief to prevent the permanent retention of his arrest and charge records, but the trial court and Court of Appeals ruled that MCL 28.243 requires such records to be maintained indefinitely as public records. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal, finding no basis to review the questions presented and thereby upholding the lower courts' decisions. A concurring justice agreed with the legal analyses but urged the Legislature to consider revising the statute for cases involving proven false allegations.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Raymond Craig Jones's conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct with his five-year-old cousin, following a jury trial. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, thereby upholding the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the conviction on remand. The concurring opinion explained that the trial court's mid-trial amendment of the information to expand the offense date range did not unfairly surprise or prejudice the defendant under MCR 6.112(H), because the complainant's testimony at the preliminary examination and trial consistently pointed to the corrected timeframe of March 2004, the defendant knew the complainant's age and kindergarten schedule as a relative and neighbor, and his defense was not limited to the inability to drive in 2003.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Spectrum Health and Orthopaedic Associates suing Titan Insurance Company for payment of medical services provided to Brandy Zoerman under Michigan's no-fault insurance system. The Michigan Supreme Court denied Titan's application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals judgment favoring the plaintiffs. The denial was based on the Court's determination that the issues did not warrant further review. Two justices dissented, referencing their prior positions in a related insurance dispute.

healthcaretorts & liability

The case Zoerman v. Titan Insurance Company involved a dispute between plaintiff Kevin Zoerman and defendant Titan Insurance Company over no-fault insurance benefits. The Michigan Supreme Court considered defendant’s application for leave to appeal a Court of Appeals judgment and denied the application on the ground that the Court was not persuaded the question presented should be reviewed by it. Justice Markman dissented from the denial of leave, referencing the reasoning in his earlier dissent in the related case Detroit Medical Center v Titan Ins Co, and Justice Corrigan joined that dissent.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether a person who occasionally drove an uninsured vehicle titled to a live-in companion qualified as an "owner" under Michigan's no-fault insurance law, MCL 500.3101(2)(h)(i) and MCL 500.3113(b), thereby disqualifying them from no-fault personal injury protection benefits. Lower courts had ruled that occasional use did not make the drivers owners because it was not regular or exclusive. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the insurer's motion for reconsideration of its prior order. The dissent contended that the statutory language focuses on a right to use the vehicle for more than 30 days without any added regular or exclusive use requirement and sought leave to appeal to clarify the issue.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff who tripped on a less-than-two-inch defect in a brick sidewalk adjacent to a state highway in Lansing and sued the city under the highway exception to governmental immunity for failing to maintain the sidewalk in reasonable repair. The central issue was whether the statutory two-inch rule of MCL 691.1402a(2), which creates a rebuttable inference that a municipality maintained the sidewalk in reasonable repair, applies to sidewalks next to state highways or is limited to those next to county highways. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the rule applies only to sidewalks adjacent to county highways. It reasoned from the text and structure of MCL 691.1402a, including the county-highway limitations in subsections (1) and (3), that subsection (2) must be read as part of the same limited statutory scheme, thereby reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the trial court's orders striking the rule as a defense and denying summary disposition.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a challenge by Jewish Academy of Metropolitan Detroit against the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) and other schools, contesting an array of MHSAA rules governing conditions for member schools' participation in interscholastic sports; the trial court found violations of the U.S. Constitution, Michigan Constitution, and state and federal civil rights laws, and issued an injunction requiring policy changes, similar to a prior federal case on athletic scheduling. The Court of Appeals affirmed on procedural grounds, holding that MHSAA had waived substantive issues by failing to include them in the required summary statement of questions involved in its appellate brief under MCR 7.212(C)(5). The Michigan Supreme Court denied MHSAA's motion for reconsideration of its January 2010 order, concluding that the order was not entered erroneously. A dissent argued that the procedural dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion because the issues were fully briefed and no prejudice resulted.

civil rightsprocedure