Richard A. Bandstra

In Ververis v. Hartfield Lanes, a premises liability action, plaintiff Peter Ververis sued after slipping and falling on snow-covered ice in the defendant's parking lot, fracturing his ankle. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, overturning a jury verdict in the plaintiffs' favor. On remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a snow-covered surface presents an open and obvious danger as a matter of law, even without additional factors indicating slipperiness, based on precedents from Kenny v. Kaatz Funeral Home and related Supreme Court orders. The court reasoned that the open and obvious doctrine precludes liability because an average person would anticipate the risk upon casual inspection.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved Florida Leasco, LLC appealing the Tax Tribunal's dismissal of its petition challenging a tax determination, which was rejected for lack of jurisdiction as untimely under MCL 205.22(1) because it arrived one day after the 35-day deadline despite being sent by certified mail within that period. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the petition was timely filed. The core reasoning centered on the ambiguous language of MCL 205.735 regarding when a filing occurs, which the court interpreted by reference to legislative history, the intent to codify prior Tax Tribunal Rule 201, and the distinction from earlier case law requiring actual delivery, concluding that certified mailing suffices to invoke jurisdiction in such matters.

taxesprocedure

The case involved defendant Charles Milstead's appeal from jury convictions on charges of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and common-law obstruction of justice, arising from a plot to kill a witness (Brian Gross) who had testified against two men charged with armed robbery; the plot included recorded discussions about hiring the defendant to commit the murder, a meeting where partial payment was exchanged, and police surveillance. The trial court imposed a life sentence for the murder conspiracy and shorter concurrent terms for the other convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court's jury selection procedure allowing multiple peremptory challenges at once did not violate defendant's rights or resemble an improper struck-jury method, that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts, and that other claims such as improper closing arguments were forfeited or lacked merit for failure to show prejudice or preservation. The court rejected arguments that the evidence preponderated against the verdict or that procedural errors warranted reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

In Leibel v. General Motors Corp., plaintiffs in a products liability lawsuit attached to their complaint a memo prepared by GM in-house counsel analyzing legal strategy and evidence for defending claims involving allegedly defective seatback designs in rear-end collisions. The trial court denied GM's motion to retrieve the memo, ruling that it was not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine because it had become available in court files from other cases nationwide. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the memo was clearly covered by both privileges as it provided legal advice on ongoing and anticipated litigation, and that any disclosures in other jurisdictions were involuntary due to court orders or inadvertence and thus did not waive the privileges under Michigan law. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine whether GM made any voluntary disclosures.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved defendant Kent Sexton, who was convicted by a jury of solicitation to commit murder, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and common-law obstruction of justice after he discussed and arranged with others to kill a key witness against him in a pending armed robbery case. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences including life imprisonment for the murder-related convictions. On appeal, the court rejected the defendant's entrapment defense, finding insufficient evidence that police conduct induced the crimes rather than merely providing an opportunity, and upheld the convictions and the life sentence for solicitation after determining the trial court properly exercised its discretion under the statute allowing life or any term of years. The court affirmed in part and vacated in part, addressing issues such as the relationship between the obstruction convictions.

criminal law

In this case, plaintiff Valary Joyce sued her former employer Barry Rubin and snow removal contractors Bare Snow and Larry Garlinghouse after she fell on a snowy sidewalk while removing belongings from the Rubins' home, claiming negligence in maintaining safe premises and failing to perform snow removal duties under contract. The trial court granted summary disposition to all defendants, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the snowy condition was open and obvious so the homeowner had no duty to warn or make it safe under premises liability law, and that the contractors owed only a common-law duty of ordinary care which they did not breach because the snowfall did not meet the contract's minimum threshold of two inches. The court rejected arguments that the open and obvious doctrine applies only to failure-to-warn claims and not to failure-to-maintain claims.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved the 1991 conviction of defendant Michael Lee Perry, then a juvenile later sentenced as an adult, on three counts of first-degree murder (with arson as the underlying felony) and three counts of attempted murder for his role in throwing Molotov cocktails into a neighboring home, resulting in the deaths of three children amid a feud between families. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences following a jury trial. The court addressed claims that the trial court erred by failing to provide proper jury instructions on evaluating accomplice testimony from the co-participant and on accessory after the fact as a cognate lesser included offense, concluding that any instructional issues did not require reversal given the evidence presented and applicable legal standards for lesser offenses.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant John Leroy Coones, who was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated stalking, malicious destruction of property, and two counts of unauthorized entry related to conduct against his estranged wife, including violating a temporary restraining order and bond conditions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding that the trial court properly excluded the "legitimate purpose" language from the jury instructions on harassment because the defendant's actions violated court orders and were therefore illegitimate, and that the trial judge was not required to be disqualified. However, the court remanded for resentencing, concluding that the trial judge improperly removed defendant's original counsel without adequate procedures or input from the defendant, which prejudiced the defense at the sentencing hearing. The decision rested on interpretations of the stalking statute and rules governing judicial disqualification and right to counsel.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a car accident caused by an allegedly intoxicated driver who had left a wedding at the Midland Country Club, leading the injured plaintiff to file a dramshop action against the club. The trial court granted summary disposition to Midland under MCR 2.116(C)(7) due to the plaintiff's failure to provide timely written notice as required by the dramshop act, MCL 436.22(5). The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the police report available shortly after the accident supplied sufficient information that Midland might be liable, triggering the 120-day notice period from when the plaintiff retained counsel in July 1991. The court rejected arguments that the statute required admissible evidence of liability, proof that the attorney-client relationship was specifically for a dramshop claim, or a showing of prejudice from the late notice, emphasizing the statute's plain language and an exception only for information that could not reasonably have been known.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Eleanor Peters, as personal representative of Leo Peters's estate, against the Michigan Department of Corrections after an escaped prisoner, William Solomon, fatally shot Leo Peters during a home invasion following his escape from a prison work site. The trial court granted summary disposition to the defendant under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(8) on grounds of governmental immunity. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the trespass-nuisance exception to immunity did not apply because the prisoner's independent criminal actions after escaping constituted an intervening cause not under the government's control, distinguishing the facts from cases like Continental Paper where the harm was a direct result of the alleged nuisance. The court reasoned that the decedent's death was not the natural and likely result of any alleged insecure prison conditions maintained by the defendant.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure