Dorothy Comstock Riley

This case concerned a workers' compensation claim filed by plaintiff Black against her former employer, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, for benefits related to a nervous condition she attributed to her job. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board awarded benefits after finding that plaintiff's subsequent employment did not aggravate her condition and that the employer could not offset voluntary wage continuation payments made after her last day of work. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the award of compensation, concluding that the appeal board's factual findings were supported by record evidence and that the voluntary payments did not qualify as wages or compensation under the Workers' Disability Compensation Act for setoff purposes under MCL 418.811. A partial dissent argued that the setoff should have been allowed to avoid unintended double recovery.

labor & employment

In People v. Campbell, defendant Steven Paul Campbell was charged with open murder after he provided a gun to Kevin Basnaw, who was intoxicated and discussing suicide following an affair involving Campbell's wife; Basnaw then used the gun to kill himself. The circuit court denied Campbell's motion to quash the information, relying on the 1920 precedent in People v. Roberts, which had treated providing poison to a suicidal spouse as first-degree murder. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the conduct did not constitute murder under Michigan common law because suicide by definition excludes homicide, the Roberts decision no longer reflected current law, and no statute or consistent common-law authority classified incitement to or facilitation of suicide as murder. The court emphasized the absence of a reasonably ascertainable standard of guilt and noted that the Legislature, not the judiciary, should address such conduct. It remanded with instructions to quash the information and discharge the defendant.

criminal law

The case involved a defendant convicted of four counts of delivering less than 50 grams of cocaine who raised an entrapment defense based on interactions with an undercover officer who allegedly induced him to obtain the drugs. The trial court denied the defense after an evidentiary hearing, reasoning that the defendant could not claim entrapment while denying he delivered a controlled substance and that the officer's conduct was not so reprehensible as to warrant the defense under the objective test. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court failed to make the required findings of fact under court rules and precedent, which prevented proper review, and that the defendant was entitled to a full hearing on entrapment without admitting guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Kelly, the defendant was convicted in a bench trial in Detroit Recorder’s Court of misdemeanor assault and battery. On appeal, he argued that he was not advised of his right to a jury trial under the local court rule, that the rule violated equal protection and due process by requiring misdemeanor defendants in Detroit to request a jury trial in writing while defendants elsewhere received an automatic right, that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined him about prior incidents and prison discipline, and that the trial judge failed to make adequate findings of fact. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the absence of a transcript precluded review of the jury-trial advice claim, that the defendant had been afforded equivalent rights and the court system reorganization eliminated any ongoing disparity, that the cross-examination was either permissible or harmless, and that the judge’s findings sufficiently supported the verdict given the straightforward issues of who was the aggressor. The topics addressed are criminal law and procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a waitress sued her employer and supervisors for gender discrimination under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, claiming the required uniform of high heels and short skirt caused harassment, that she was forced to quit in retaliation for a prior federal lawsuit, and that the supervisors intentionally inflicted emotional distress and interfered with her employment contract. The circuit court granted accelerated judgment to the defendants, dismissing the suit on the ground that the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act provided the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, reasoning that the exclusivity provision bars only claims for disabilities compensable under the compensation act, while damages for humiliation, mental anguish, lost wages, and career harm arising from discrimination are independent injuries not covered by the act and may be pursued in circuit court.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

In this workers' compensation case, the plaintiff was injured in a part-time job with the defendant while also holding a full-time job elsewhere; he was temporarily disabled from both but later returned to full-time work while remaining unable to resume part-time work due to the injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board modified the hearing referee's decision to allow the defendant credit against benefits for all wages the plaintiff earned in his full-time job. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that under precedents such as Bowles v. James Lumber Co. and Lahay v. Hastings Lodge, wages from employment unaffected by the disability (or no longer affected after the plaintiff returned to full-time work) cannot be used to reduce benefits owed for the disability-related part-time employment. The court reasoned that the average weekly wage for benefit calculation must be based solely on the part-time job with the defendant, and credit is limited to any additional part-time wages from the defendant or replacement part-time work. The case was remanded for redetermination of benefits accordingly.

labor & employment

The case involved defendant Anthony's conviction for armed robbery of a clothing store, based in part on evidence seized after police forcibly entered his home without a warrant approximately 15-30 minutes after the crime. Officers had been led to the home by a witness who saw suspects running nearby, and upon knocking they heard movement inside before breaking down the door and finding the defendant and stolen items. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment and Michigan Constitution because exigent circumstances were absent—the officers had the house secured, faced no immediate threat to safety, and had no reason to believe evidence would be destroyed or the suspect would escape. The court distinguished the facts from true hot pursuit scenarios like Warden v. Hayden and relied on Payton v. New York and similar Michigan precedents requiring a warrant absent such circumstances. A dissent argued for remand due to the lack of a full evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a no-fault auto insurance claim by plaintiff Krawczyk against defendant Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange for personal protection benefits under MCL 500.3107 following a 1978 car accident that caused her to miss work. The district court awarded amounts including 85% of lost wages, profit-sharing, pension contributions, substitute health insurance premiums, medical bills, interest, attorney fees, and costs, which the circuit court affirmed; the Court of Appeals reviewed whether fringe benefits qualified as recoverable work loss. The court held that profit-sharing and pension contributions counted as lost income from work and were thus recoverable under the statute, while substitute health insurance was recoverable as a replacement expense, but it vacated portions of the award and adjusted the total to respect the district court's $10,000 jurisdictional limit by excluding certain interest, fees, and costs from the damages calculation. It reasoned that the no-fault provision, modeled on the Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act, broadly covers actual loss of earnings rather than limiting recovery to wages alone, and that ancillary awards like fees and interest may exceed the jurisdictional cap without voiding the underlying judgment.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the City of Detroit seeking a permanent injunction to stop Nortown Theatre from operating an adult motion picture theater without a required permit under zoning Ordinance 390-G, as amended by 742-G, which regulated the location of such theaters near other regulated uses or residential areas. The theater had previously litigated the ordinance's constitutionality in federal court, where the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld its validity in Young v. American Mini Theatres. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction, holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred the defendants from relitigating the ordinance's validity because the prior federal proceedings addressed the same cause of action and core issues. The court reasoned that allowing repeated challenges would undermine the finality of judgments and that the defendants' operation violated the permit and location requirements without a waiver.

free speechbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the defendant's conviction for assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct involving penetration and violation of the felony-firearm statute. On appeal, the sole issue was whether a police officer could testify about the complainant's lineup identification of the defendant, including her statement that she was positive, over a hearsay objection. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the officer's testimony was admissible under MRE 801(d)(1) as a non-hearsay prior statement of identification, drawing on prior Michigan precedent and federal interpretations of the similar rule that permit third-party testimony about the facts and words of an identification in appropriate circumstances. The court affirmed the convictions, with one judge concurring on the basis that any error was harmless given other identification evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) claim by a locomotive engineer against his railroad employer for respiratory injuries allegedly caused by exposure to toxic fumes at work. The plaintiff had previously settled his claim for $650 and signed a general release, but later filed suit asserting that the release was invalid due to mutual mistake because the full extent of his pulmonary conditions was unknown at the time. The trial court granted accelerated judgment dismissing the action based on the release. The appellate court reversed, holding that under federal law governing FELA releases, a factual dispute existed regarding whether the parties operated under a mistaken assumption about the present nature of the injuries, which must be resolved by a jury rather than by dismissal. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Commodities Export Co. suing the City of Detroit and private entities to stop interference with its employees distributing commercial handbills advertising duty-free goods in a parking lot on the Ambassador Bridge plaza. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding that the bridge and plaza are private property except for the narrow purpose of transportation across the border. The court reasoned that precedents establish the property remains private for other uses like commercial solicitation, so there was no right to handbill under Michigan law or the First Amendment of the U.S. or Michigan Constitutions. It also denied plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a claim based on a later Supreme Court decision, deeming the amendment futile. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed.

free speechproperty

The case involved a 1980 shooting stemming from a feud between neighboring families, resulting in charges against the defendant for assault with intent to murder, felony-firearm possession, and possession of a short-barreled shotgun. A jury convicted him of the lesser assault offense of intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, along with the two firearm counts, and he received concurrent sentences. On appeal, the court addressed double-jeopardy claims, finding that the assault and short-barreled shotgun convictions rested on proof of a single act, with the possession charge constituting a lesser included cognate offense, while the felony-firearm and short-barreled shotgun charges also overlapped factually. The court vacated the short-barreled shotgun conviction and sentence but upheld the assault and felony-firearm convictions, and it rejected claims of error in the trial court's handling of jury questions during deliberations, concluding the instructions caused no manifest injustice. The ruling applied both the Blockburger test and a factual-proofs analysis to the double-jeopardy issues.

criminal law

In People v. Gibson, the defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree felony murder, assault with intent to commit armed robbery, and felony-firearm possession based on a 1978 incident in which he and two accomplices attempted to rob a house known to sell marijuana, during which the victim was fatally shot. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the convictions on two grounds. First, the trial court improperly conditioned its ruling on the admissibility of the defendant's prior convictions for impeachment purposes on whether the defense agreed not to impeach the prosecution's main witness, thereby placing the evidentiary decision under defense counsel's control in violation of People v. Hayes. Second, the dual convictions for felony murder and the underlying felony of assault with intent to rob violated double jeopardy because proof of the greater offense necessarily required proof of the lesser included offense.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the defendant pleaded guilty to armed robbery and attempted receiving or concealing stolen property over $100, receiving concurrent prison sentences. The court addressed challenges to the armed robbery conviction based on the trial court's failure to advise the defendant that armed robbery carries a nonprobationable status under court rule GCR 1963, 785.7(1)(f), as well as an alleged ex parte communication between the trial judge and the presentence investigator. Relying on the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in People v Rogers, the court held that noncompliance with the nonprobationable offense advice requirement mandates reversal of the armed robbery conviction. On the ex parte communication issue, the court found that any presumption of prejudice was rebutted because the discussion was limited to correcting inaccuracies in the presentence report that the defendant had raised, and those corrections were explained in open court. The attempted receiving stolen property conviction was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a plaintiff who sued a motorcycle sales business for negligence and product liability after being injured by a defective helmet sold in 1971; the business was sold in 1974 to Schmoke and McBath Enterprises, Inc., which continued operating under the same assumed name and was served with the second amended complaint in June 1974. The trial court permitted the plaintiff to file a third amended complaint naming the successor entity and ruled that the amendment related back to the date of the second amended complaint. The Court of Appeals held that the successor was a proper party properly served and could face tort liability as a business successor independent of the Bulk Sales Act, but reversed the relation-back ruling as to the new Bulk Sales Act count because that claim arose from the separate business transfer transaction and was filed after the Act's six-month limitations period had expired. The court remanded for further proceedings on the tort claims.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over the amount of business-interruption insurance coverage available after a 1974 fire destroyed the plaintiffs' building. The plaintiffs had canceled their prior policy based on an oral agreement and binder promising identical coverage with a 50 percent coinsurance factor, but the new policy issued by Royal Globe (through the Morris Agency) contained an 80 percent factor. The lower court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on estoppel grounds. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the defendants were estopped from enforcing the higher factor because they failed to notify the plaintiffs of the change despite having the prior synopsis and binder showing 50 percent, and the plaintiffs had reasonably relied on the promise of matching coverage when switching insurers.

business & regulatory

The case involved charges against Maurice Craig for possession of heroin with intent to deliver and Roberta Killebrew for possession of heroin, based on evidence seized during a warrantless search. The trial court quashed the informations, finding the evidence was illegally obtained, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The court reasoned that the shared hallway in the two-apartment building was a private area where the defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy, so the officers were not lawfully present when they observed the narcotics in plain view, making the plain view exception inapplicable.

criminal lawprocedure

Tel-Ex Plaza sued Hardees Restaurants for breaching an agreement to enter into a build-to-suit lease for a parcel of land in Southfield, Michigan, where Tel-Ex would construct a building and Hardees would pay rent for 20 years. After Hardees canceled the agreement due to a denied sign permit and a change in neighboring tenants, Tel-Ex leased the property to another restaurant on different terms. The trial court found a breach by Hardees but awarded no damages to Tel-Ex, and both parties appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under contract damages principles—including the duty to mitigate losses and crediting benefits from the breach such as the $120,000 saved by not constructing the building plus interest on those funds—Tel-Ex suffered no net damages. The court also upheld the trial court's decision not to award costs to either party.

business & regulatoryproperty

In People v. LaForte, a jury convicted the defendant of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit larceny. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. The court found that the prosecutor had repeatedly elicited irrelevant and prejudicial testimony about the defendant's poverty, unemployment, and extramarital relationships to imply a motive or lack of credibility. It reasoned that this pattern of misconduct by the same prosecutor in prior cases made the trial unfair, that timely objections would not have cured the prejudice, and that the defendant was therefore entitled to a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure