The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to allow the receiver to reject a lease because the plain language of the Michigan Receiver Act allows a receiver to do so. The COA also affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to strike cross-default language from the contracts with Skymint.

There is no “taking” under the Michigan Constitution’s Takings Clause if the foreclosing governmental unit attempts to sell the foreclosed-upon property at a public auction but the property does not sell, the Michigan Supreme Court has unanimously decided.

The Takings Clause of the Michigan Constitution was violated where the plaintiffs’ foreclosed-on properties were never offered for sale at a public auction, the Michigan Supreme Court has unanimously ruled.

The Trial Court erred when it effectively changed physical custody based solely on an in camera interview with the children without making findings regarding whether the change would alter the established custodial environment and applying the appropriate burden of proof, whether modification was in the children’s best interests.

The Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee have standing to sue City of Flint officials for not appointing enough inspectors during the 2022 election, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled.

The Right to Farm Act (RTFA) may be invoked with regard to ordinances enacted before 2000 where those ordinances are subject to prospective enforcement for post-2000 activities.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services was wrongly ordered to return or destroy the plaintiffs’ stored blood spots and data that had been collected under Michigan’s newborn health screening program, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that while contractually shortened limitations periods are generally permitted, such provisions in adhesive, non-negotiated employment agreements require close judicial scrutiny and must be examined for reasonableness.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) was not required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family because the respondent-parent subjected the child to aggravated circumstances, as defined under MCL 722.638(1) and (2), by facilitating criminal sexual conduct involving penetration, even though the parent did not personally commit the act.

The trial court in this termination of parental rights case correctly held that it was in the minor child’s best interests to terminate the respondent-father’s parental rights, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in a 2-1 decision.

The Court held that remanding for nonsummary contempt proceedings after vacating a summary conviction for insufficient findings is improper when the original contempt was appropriately handled summarily (because it occurred in the judge’s presence) however, the record was too insufficient to support a conviction and the original proceeding has long concluded.

In an unanimous opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that there is no clear evidence that the Legislature intended the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA) to eliminate common-law claims such as fraud, conversion, and breach of contract arising from a gambling dispute between a patron and an online gaming licensee.

The trial court wrongly dismissed the plaintiff’s medical malpractice and negligence claims that arose during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic because the decedent’s injuries were not sustained “by reason of” healthcare services provided “in support of [the] state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The wrongful death savings provisions under MCL 600.5852 extends the filing timeframe and tolls the statutory notice period and therefore the Court of Claims grant of summary disposition was reversed and remanded.

The trial court in this custody case did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s request for a medical examination of the plaintiff, her ex-husband, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The plaintiff demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding the hospital's liability for medical malpractice under the theory of ostensible agency and did not need to show further reliance under the Grewe test.

The trial court in this termination of parental rights case applied the wrong legal framework when assessing the children’s best interests, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that both C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC, and Wallace had standing to file their respective lawsuits, but they were not the real parties in interest at the time of filing because they had assigned their claims for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits to third parties.