Elizabeth A. Weaver

The case concerned a complaint for superintending control filed by Melissa Burwell against the Attorney Grievance Commission in the Michigan Supreme Court. The court considered the complaint and denied relief. Its decision rested on the determination that it was not persuaded the requested relief should be granted. Justice Weaver did not participate in the matter.

procedure

In McCarthy v. Scofield, plaintiff Patrick McCarthy moved to disqualify four Michigan Supreme Court justices from his underlying civil case against the Department of Human Services, Oakland County officials, and related entities, alleging improper political, social, or business relationships that would create bias. Each challenged justice issued a statement denying the motion, asserting no pecuniary interests, personal relationships, or other basis for disqualification under court rules, and characterizing the claims as untrue and without foundation. Some justices also noted their administrative roles in child welfare matters were separate from their judicial duties and expressed broader concerns about how new disqualification procedures encourage frivolous motions and divert court resources. The statements collectively affirm that the motions lacked merit and did not warrant recusal.

procedure

The case involved the City of Rockford challenging actions or authority of the 63rd District Court and its chief judge in Kent County, with the county intervening as a defendant. After the Court of Appeals issued a judgment against the city, the Michigan Supreme Court reviewed an application for leave to appeal. The Court denied the application, explaining that it was not persuaded the questions presented merited further review. Justice Weaver indicated she would have granted leave to appeal.

procedure

In Hendee v. Putnam Township, property owners sought to develop a 144-acre parcel into a 498-unit manufactured housing community but were denied rezoning from agricultural use to single-family residential and a planned unit development by the township. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs' exclusionary zoning claim was not ripe for judicial review because they had not applied for rezoning or a variance specifically for manufactured housing use. The court reasoned that a zoning ordinance is not facially invalid merely for not authorizing every possible use, and the denial of lower-density rezoning did not automatically make further applications futile, requiring the township to have an opportunity to decide on the proposed use first.

propertyprocedure

This case involved the termination of Billy Joe Hansen's parental rights to his minor daughter, Genevieve Brookelyn Hansen, after the Department of Human Services petitioned the Manistee Circuit Court Family Division. The Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' July 2009 judgment that had upheld the termination and remanded the matter to the trial court. The remand directs reconsideration of the termination decision specifically in light of the Court's recent ruling in In re Mason, which addressed related issues in parental rights cases. Justice Weaver dissented, arguing that In re Mason was incorrectly decided and did not apply to the facts here.

family law

This medical malpractice case concerned whether plaintiff satisfied the notice-of-intent (NOI) requirements of MCL 600.2912b(2) by timely mailing the NOI to defendants' prior business address, even though defendants did not receive it until after the two-year limitations period had expired. The Michigan Supreme Court held that plaintiff complied with the statute because proof of mailing constitutes prima facie evidence of compliance, the mailing occurred before the limitations period expired, and the date of actual receipt is irrelevant. The Court further held that the limitations period was tolled under the amended version of MCL 600.5856(c) as interpreted in Bush v. Shabahang, and that any defect in the NOI should be disregarded under MCL 600.2301 because defendants ultimately received the notice, their substantial rights were unaffected, and allowing the opportunity for settlement furthers justice. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment that had affirmed dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case to the trial court.

proceduretorts & liability

The Michigan Supreme Court addressed a certified question from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in the case of Karen Waeschle v. Oakland County Medical Examiner and Oakland County. The court granted the request to answer the question, allowing parties to file additional briefs in conformity with court rules and permitting amicus curiae briefs from interested parties. Justices Weaver and Young dissented, maintaining that the Michigan Supreme Court lacks authority under state law or the constitution to respond to certified questions from other courts, though the order reflects the court's prior determination that it possesses such authority as the final arbiter of state law.

procedure

The case involved a criminal defendant, Macc eo Rozier, who appealed his sentence from the Wayne Circuit Court after a felony conviction. The Michigan Supreme Court considered an application for leave to appeal a Court of Appeals order and, in lieu of granting leave, vacated the defendant's sentence. The Court remanded the case for resentencing, directing the trial court to impose a sentence within the appropriate guidelines range or to provide on the record a substantial and compelling reason for any departure, consistent with precedents such as People v. Hendrick and People v. Babcock. Leave to appeal was denied on all other issues. A dissent argued that the original departure was adequately justified under the statutory standard.

criminal law

The case involved an appeal by defendant Orlando Ray Gray from a criminal conviction and sentence imposed by the Gogebic Circuit Court. The Michigan Supreme Court vacated the sentence and remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing. The court directed the trial court to reconsider the scoring of offense variable 15 in light of the decision in People v McGraw and to impose a sentence within the appropriate guidelines range or state a substantial and compelling reason for any departure on the record. The application for leave to appeal was denied in all other respects.

criminal law

The case concerned whether defendant Rae Louise Plumb qualified for no-fault personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits after she drove a vehicle provided by an unidentified man, crashed while intoxicated, and held a suspended license. The trial court granted summary disposition to plaintiff Amerisure Insurance Company, finding Plumb ineligible under MCL 500.3113(a), and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, leaving the denial of benefits in place. The concurring opinion explained that the statute requires reading "take and use" together and that Plumb could not reasonably believe she was entitled to do so given her known intoxication and lack of a valid license.

healthcare

The case involved allegations of judicial misconduct against 63rd District Court Judge Steven Servaas, including claims that he vacated his judicial office by moving outside his district and engaged in inappropriate conduct through a sexual comment and two drawings. The Judicial Tenure Commission recommended his removal from office. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the vacation-of-office issue could only be resolved through a quo warranto action brought by the Attorney General in the Court of Appeals, rejecting that portion of the recommendation. On the misconduct claims, the court found the conduct inappropriate but concluded it did not warrant removal, instead imposing public censure, viewing the incidents as an isolated aberration after 35 years of service.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs seeking to certify a class action against Dow Chemical Company for alleged property damage caused by dioxin contamination from the company's Midland plant into the Tittabawassee River, with claims based on negligence and nuisance. The Michigan Supreme Court addressed the standards for class certification under MCR 3.501(A)(1), requiring plaintiffs to provide sufficient information establishing each prerequisite—numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority—while instructing courts to avoid ruling on the merits of the underlying claims at this stage. The Court concluded that the circuit court's analysis of typicality and adequacy was unclear and remanded the case for further clarification consistent with these standards.

proceduretorts & liabilityenvironment

This case concerns a contract dispute between the University of Michigan Regents and Health System and Titan Insurance Company regarding whether MCL 600.5821(4) exempts the university from statutes of limitations in seeking recovery on certain claims. The Michigan Supreme Court considered a motion for reconsideration of its prior order denying leave to appeal the Court of Appeals judgment. The Court granted the motion, vacated its earlier order, and granted leave to appeal, directing briefing on whether Liptow v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co and Cameron v ACIA were correctly decided. A concurrence explained that a change in court composition can support reconsideration if a majority finds palpable error under MCR 2.119(F)(3), while a dissent maintained that no new issues were raised and that reconsideration based on court composition violates longstanding precedent.

procedure

The case involved plaintiff David Schock's complaint seeking superintending control over the Michigan Court of Appeals' handling of his request to videotape oral arguments in a proceeding. The Michigan Supreme Court granted immediate consideration but denied relief, holding the matter moot because oral argument had already occurred on July 14, 2009. The Court noted that the Court of Appeals had permitted Schock to pool footage with an existing courtroom camera operated by a television station. Concurring opinions addressed related issues of judicial disclosure and prior administrative orders on media access but did not alter the disposition. The core reasoning centered on mootness under court rules, as no ongoing controversy remained for superintending control.

procedurefree speech

The case concerned whether a multicounty health department, acting under MCL 333.2441(1) and with county approval, could promulgate a 2005 regulation restricting workplace smoking more strictly than the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act, including by requiring separately ventilated smoking rooms and by creating a private cause of action allowing employees to sue employers for retaliation or discharge related to the smoking rules. Plaintiffs, business owners and residents, sought declaratory relief invalidating the regulation on grounds of statutory authority, preemption, and conflict with Michigan’s at-will employment doctrine. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the Public Health Code authorized the local regulation and that the private enforcement mechanism fit within recognized public-policy exceptions to at-will employment. The Court adopted the lower court’s analysis that the regulation did not exceed statutory bounds or improperly alter employment law.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenthealthcare

This case involved a law firm suing a former client to recover unpaid legal fees under a written retainer agreement after the client stopped paying bills during an appeal and terminated the relationship. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the parties' obligations were governed by the explicit terms of their contract rather than rules for a mutual and open account current, and that the breach of contract claim for the original unpaid fees accrued on the date the attorney-client relationship was terminated by court order in 1993. Because the firm did not file suit until 1999, more than six years later, the main claim was barred by the statute of limitations under MCL 600.5807(8). However, the court determined that charges for later file-review and return services arose from a separate agreement and were timely filed, resulting in a limited judgment for the plaintiff. The decision turned on the existence of a detailed written contract specifying payment terms and the principle that post-termination administrative tasks did not extend the accrual date.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves former law professors at Ave Maria School of Law who sued the school, its chairperson Thomas Monaghan, and related entities, alleging wrongful termination in 2007 after they reported suspected legal violations. The central dispute concerned plaintiffs' request for production of Monaghan's personal notes and reminder documents potentially related to the litigation. The trial court ordered production of relevant notes, leading to appeals over the scope of discovery. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' decision and dissolved a prior stay, allowing the trial court's production order to take effect. The core reasoning was that the Court was not persuaded that the issues warranted further review at this stage.

procedurelabor & employment

The case concerned whether a defendant convicted of child sexually abusive activity and related offenses after online communications with an undercover police officer posing as a minor could be scored 15 points under offense variable 10 for predatory conduct directed at a vulnerable victim. The trial court imposed the points over the defendant's objection, but the Court of Appeals vacated the sentence on remand after considering People v Cannon. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the prosecution's application for leave to appeal, concluding it was not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by the Court. Dissenting justices would have granted leave to address whether OV 10 requires an actual victim or focuses on the defendant's conduct and intent.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a criminal prosecution in which defendant Jeremy Fisher was charged with felonious assault and felony-firearm possession after police officers, responding to a noise complaint and reports of erratic behavior, entered his home without a warrant and saw him pointing a rifle. The trial court suppressed the officers' observations, ruling the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the emergency aid exception did not apply because the visible blood and damage did not indicate a likely serious injury. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, stating it was no longer persuaded the questions presented required its review. Dissenting justices argued the entry was lawful under the emergency aid exception, as the circumstances could reasonably suggest someone inside needed medical or psychiatric assistance.

criminal lawprocedureguns

The case involves a zoning dispute between plaintiff Edith Kyser and defendant Kasson Township. The Michigan Supreme Court granted the township's application for leave to appeal a May 2008 Court of Appeals judgment. The Court directed the parties to brief three issues concerning the continued validity of the “no very serious consequences” rule from Silva v Ada Township: whether the rule was superseded by 1978 PA 637 (now MCL 125.3207), whether it violates separation of powers by allowing enhanced judicial review of local zoning decisions, and whether it impermissibly shifts the burden of proof to the local government. The order also granted amicus participation and noted that Justice Weaver was not participating due to a business relationship with a township official.

propertyprocedure