Vincent J. Brennan

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.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employment

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Arthur Lee Harbison's appeal of a six-month driver's license suspension by the Secretary of State under Michigan law for his refusal to take a breath-analysis test after a DUIL arrest. Harbison argued that the suspension was improper because police failed to inform him of a departmental policy limiting test requests to within one hour of an initial refusal, consistent with the rule from People v Castle requiring disclosure of such policies to enable informed decisions. The Michigan Court of Appeals majority reversed the suspension, holding that the lack of notice about the policy deprived Harbison of the opportunity to make a knowing choice about the test. The dissent argued that the policy was not material in this instance and that the Castle rule improperly extended statutory requirements beyond their text.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Burton Smith who pled guilty to attempted breaking and entering a motor vehicle and unlawfully driving away an automobile. After violating probation conditions including rules at a substance abuse treatment facility and marijuana use, the trial court imposed consecutive prison sentences exceeding the sentencing guidelines and denied credit for time spent in the treatment facility. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentences, finding the judge's reasons for departure adequate and the terms within discretion, but reversed on the credit issue. It reasoned that the facility's restrictions made the time equivalent to confinement, entitling the defendant to sentence credit under applicable law and precedents.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff seriously injured in a 1981 car accident caused by Dennis Barker, a driver whose license the Michigan Secretary of State's office had reinstated despite a circuit court probation order suspending his driving privileges for two years after a negligent homicide conviction. The plaintiff sued the state, the Department of State, the Secretary of State, and individual employees, alleging claims including negligence in licensing, intentional disregard of the court order, intentional nuisance, and liability under the highway exception to governmental immunity. Both the Court of Claims and circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the state and its employees are not liable for injuries caused by drivers negligently issued licenses, reasoning that governmental immunity applied, no specific duty was owed to the plaintiff, the highway exception concerns only road conditions rather than driver licensing, and no valid nuisance claim was stated.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In People v. Wooster, the defendant was convicted after separate jury trials of delivery of LSD and unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and he appealed both convictions. The central issue was whether the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lacked a license or authorization to distribute the controlled substances. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that lack of a license is not an element of either offense under the Public Health Code, citing statutory provisions that place the burden of proving any exemption on the defendant and prior precedent interpreting similar language in earlier controlled substances laws. The majority affirmed both convictions, finding sufficient evidence for the LSD delivery charge and no abuse of discretion in admitting the LSD conviction for impeachment in the marijuana trial. A partial dissent argued that the impeachment evidence was improperly admitted and warranted reversal of the marijuana conviction.

criminal law

The case was a wrongful death action brought by a father alleging that his six-year-old daughter drowned in the defendants' backyard pond due to negligence and attractive nuisance after the adults briefly left the children unsupervised. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants based on a jury verdict of no cause of action. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial improperly allowed evidence, closing arguments, and jury instructions regarding the mother's alleged negligent supervision, which could have misled the jury into believing that a non-party's conduct was the sole proximate cause even if the defendants were also negligent. The court further held that the recreational use statute did not apply to shield the defendants from liability to social invitees.

torts & liabilityfamily lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with obstruction by disguise under MCL 750.217 after allegedly providing a false name to a police officer in 1982. The district court dismissed the charge, concluding that the conduct did not fall within the statute, but the circuit court reversed and reinstated the charge. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court, reinstating the dismissal on the grounds that the statute requires physical concealment to constitute a disguise and that giving a false name is merely verbal deception outside its scope. The court applied rules of strict construction for penal statutes, resolving any ambiguity in favor of the defendant and emphasizing that criminal statutes cannot be extended beyond their clear and obvious import.

criminal law

The case involved a mother with multiple sclerosis whose parental rights to her four-year-old son were terminated by the probate court on grounds of neglect under MCL 712A.19a(e) and mental illness under MCL 712A.19a(c), after the child was removed from her home due to her physical limitations and placed in foster care. The Court of Appeals reversed the termination order, holding that parental rights may not be terminated based on a parent's physical incapacity absent culpable neglect and that normal depression accompanying a physical illness does not establish mental illness under the statute. The court found no clear error in the probate court's findings regarding the mother's physical inability to care for the child but concluded the evidence was insufficient to support termination on either statutory ground, as the condition stemmed from an unavoidable physical disease rather than neglect or impaired mental functioning.

family law

The case was a criminal appeal by defendant Miller from his jury conviction for possession with intent to deliver heroin under Michigan law, for which he received a prison sentence. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the jury's verdict was not uncertain despite a clerk's error in polling because the written verdict form and foreperson's statement clearly showed intent to convict as charged. It further held that the trial court properly exercised discretion under MRE 609 by allowing impeachment with one prior conviction for attempted carrying a concealed weapon while excluding drug-related priors, and that any error from stipulating to chemical analysis results was harmless given the defendant's admissions and lack of shown prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, three defendants were convicted of armed robbery following a bench trial and each received a sentence of five years’ probation, with the first 90 days to be served in jail. The prosecutor appealed the sentences, arguing they were invalid. The court held that the prosecutor lacked statutory authority under MCL 770.12 to appeal the sentences directly, but exercised its discretionary power to treat the appeal as a complaint for superintending control. It concluded that the trial court had no statutory authority to impose probation for armed robbery, rendering those sentences void, and therefore reversed the sentences and remanded for new sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a medical malpractice claim filed by plaintiff Eugene Morgan, M.D., against defendant Richard S. Kamil, M.D., in Wayne County Circuit Court following hip surgery. Prior to the surgery, the plaintiff had signed a medical malpractice arbitration agreement, leading the circuit court to order arbitration instead of proceeding with the lawsuit; an arbitration panel later awarded the plaintiff $200,000. The plaintiff then sought to confirm the award and requested prejudgment interest under MCL 600.6013, which the trial court granted at varying rates from the date the complaint was filed. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute authorizes interest only on money judgments recovered in civil actions through court proceedings and does not apply to arbitration awards or judgments confirming them, as the arbitration agreement divested the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court remanded for calculation of interest under MCL 438.7 at a rate of 5% from the date of the arbitration award.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

In People v. Vicuna, the defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of felony-firearm after a shooting in the parking lot of the Pompei Lounge in Dearborn that killed Adel Berry and Mohammed Hazime, following an earlier altercation inside the bar. The defendant appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel under both federal and state constitutional standards, and sought a new trial based on alleged deficiencies in his attorney's performance. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, applying the Strickland test for the federal Sixth Amendment claim and the Garcia test for the state claim. The court found that counsel's overall performance was constitutionally adequate, that any errors were either matters of trial strategy or minimal without a reasonably likely chance of affecting the outcome, and that no actual prejudice was shown.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a divorced husband's motion to amend a 1977 divorce judgment to terminate alimony payments, arguing that his ex-wife's long-term cohabitation with another man since before the divorce constituted a de facto marriage or changed circumstances. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the cohabitation was not a sufficient basis to end alimony under the judgment's terms or Michigan law. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the arrangement was known to the husband at the time of the divorce and thus not a new fact or changed circumstance under MCL 552.28, and that the statute providing for alimony termination upon remarriage (MCL 552.13) does not extend to non-marital relationships. The court further found no evidence that the parties intended alimony to cease in the event of such cohabitation.

family lawprocedure

The case arose from a car accident involving seven-year-old Matthew Kelleher, who had a pre-existing mild stutter that worsened afterward and required more therapy, though his prognosis remained excellent. Plaintiffs sought damages under Michigan's no-fault insurance statute, which permits recovery only if the injury meets the threshold of a serious impairment of body function. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants, ruling as a matter of law that the injury did not satisfy the threshold under Cassidy v. McGovern. The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying a clearly erroneous standard of review to the trial court's determination or alternatively assessing whether reasonable minds could differ when viewing facts favorably to the plaintiff, and concluded that the threshold was not met.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a defendant charged with premeditated murder, felony murder, and kidnapping who initially pled guilty but mentally ill to second-degree murder under a sentence bargain, later obtained a new trial, and was then convicted by jury of second-degree murder and kidnapping with a longer sentence imposed. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's jury instructions on legal insanity, which required both that the defendant could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his acts and could not conform his conduct to the law rather than either condition sufficing for acquittal, as well as the reinstatement of the dismissed kidnapping charge. The court held that the insanity instruction was erroneous under the governing statute but analyzed whether it caused manifest injustice given related instructions on mental illness, and also addressed policy limits on reinstating charges after a plea bargain, ultimately reversing the convictions and remanding for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure