This case involved a dramshop action and common-law negligence claims brought by plaintiffs against a school district and others after a visibly intoxicated individual, served alcohol at a fundraiser organized by the district's athletic booster group, killed the plaintiffs' decedent. The trial court granted summary judgment to the school district, ruling that the dramshop act did not allow claims against a non-licensee principal and that the act provided the exclusive remedy. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed on the dramshop claim, holding that a principal may be held vicariously liable for its agent's violation of the act's prohibition on serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated persons, as the statute's liability provisions extend to those charged with the duty to refrain from such sales, including through agency principles. The court affirmed the dismissal of the separate negligence count and remanded for further proceedings.
The case concerned defendant Hardy's convictions for two counts of armed robbery after a jury trial in which two confessions he made to police were admitted into evidence. The majority of the Michigan Court of Appeals held that both the March 8, 1982, and May 20, 1982, statements were voluntary and admissible, finding that defendant knowingly waived his Miranda rights, was not subjected to physical or psychological coercion, and could have stopped the statements at any time, based on the totality of the circumstances including officer testimony, recordings, and the trial court's credibility assessments. The majority therefore affirmed the convictions. The dissent agreed that the first confession was admissible but concluded that the second was involuntary due to improper inducements and would have reversed and remanded for a new trial, viewing the error as not harmless.
The case involved former Lansing Mayor Gerald W. Graves, who sued the city and its officials after being denied reimbursement for accumulated unused sick and vacation leave from his time as treasurer and mayor. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that Graves, as an elected or appointed public official, did not qualify as a "regular full-time employee" under the city's Personnel Rules, which distinguish between public officers and employees, and thus was not entitled to such benefits.
In Farquhar v. Owens, plaintiff Deborah Farquhar sued for noneconomic damages after suffering a broken arm in a car accident, claiming it caused a serious impairment of a body function under Michigan's no-fault insurance statute (MCL 500.3135). Defendants admitted negligence, so the trial focused on the threshold injury issue and damages; the jury found no serious impairment, leading to a judgment of no cause of action that the trial court upheld. The Michigan Court of Appeals majority affirmed, reasoning that a broken arm did not meet the statutory threshold based on comparisons to prior cases involving fractures and back injuries that lacked significant long-term impact on daily life, and that any error in submitting the question to the jury was harmless. A dissent argued for reversal and a new trial limited to damages, citing evidence of the injury's effects on the plaintiff's self-care and work. The court also addressed but found no reversible error in the admission of certain cross-examination testimony.
The case involved a former bank vice president's lawsuit claiming age discrimination, breach of an employment contract, and negligent performance evaluations after his 1980 termination. The circuit court granted the bank's motion for accelerated judgment based on a release agreement the plaintiff signed in exchange for $16,500 in severance pay and continued benefits. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the plaintiff's failure to tender back the consideration received under the release barred his action. The decision followed precedents holding that a party seeking to avoid a release must first restore the other party to the status quo, and it rejected arguments of economic duress and lack of consideration because they contradicted the release's express terms.
In this case, Karen Courtney sued her ex-husband James Courtney alleging he fraudulently concealed the true value of his business interests during their divorce proceedings, leading her to accept an undervalued property settlement. The Michigan Court of Appeals addressed whether her separate fraud claim for damages was barred by res judicata from the prior divorce action. The court held that the claim was not barred, reasoning that res judicata principles do not protect fraud and that the fraud claim accrued only after the divorce judgment was entered, making it a separate and independent action that could not have been raised earlier. The majority affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for accelerated judgment on the fraud count.