The allegation that an extended-stay motel room was “too small” for the respondent-mother to live in with her child and the child’s father was insufficient grounds for terminating her parental rights, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in a published opinion.

Defendants who have different potential liabilities lack the “substantial identity of interests” as required for a finding of privity in an analysis of whether res judicata applies to a subsequent claim.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has affirmed an attorney’s criminal contempt conviction for derogatory comments he made about the judge at the close of a virtual court hearing.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s award of treble damages as to the documented pecuniary losses, reversed the award of trebled investigatory expenses, vacated the awards for investigatory expenses and attorney fees, and remanded for further proceedings.

The probate court in this minor guardianship proceeding did not have the legal authority to order and enforce sibling visitation, Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, reversing the probate court’s orders to that effect.

In this case involving the mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse, the trial court properly dismissed tort claims against a doctor and a hospital because immunity under the Child Protection Law applies even though the reporting was not “immediate,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s grant of summary disposition because Michigan law recognizes a critical exception for loading or uploading in its definition of parking, and thus Plaintiff’s conduct fits within that exception, and because comparative negligence is a question for the jury.

The Court reversed and remanded the Trial Court’s finding that GM was an incapacitated individual subject to a guardianship and conservatorship because DHHS did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that both MCL 700.5306 and MCL 700.5401 were met.

The trial court in this wrongful-death case properly 1) granted the estate’s motion to approve and distribute settlement proceeds without first conducting an evidentiary hearing, and 2) excluded the husband – who was married to, but separated from, the decedent at the time of her death – from receiving any proceeds.

An auto insurance company could not rescind an insured’s policy ab initio (“from the beginning”) because there was not enough evidence the insured made fraudulent statements during the application process, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s legal-malpractice claim against the defendants because she did not file her complaint within the applicable two-year statute of limitations, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court in this child protective proceeding improperly conducted an in camera interview with one of the respondent-mother’s children, and this error deprived her of due process, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s findings of liability, fraudulent intent, and treble damages with regard to claims based on failure to disclose accurate mileage, but vacated its attorney fee award and remanded for reconsideration under the proper legal framework as articulated in Pirgu v United Serv Auto Ass’n, 499 Mich 269 (2016).

The trial court in this “contentious” divorce case properly required the ex-husband to post a security bond each time he filed a motion or pleading, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, due to his “repeated” filing of “meritless” pleadings that violated the court rules.

The Michigan Supreme Court has vacated a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the termination of a father’s parental rights, sending the case back to the appeals court for reconsideration after the father files a supplemental brief.

The COA held that a judge can pierce the veil of impartiality outside of the presence of a jury, and the judge did so here by suggesting questions that the prosecutor could ask on cross-examination, which amounted to the judge engaging in litigation strategy. However, this conduct did not amount to plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights. The COA, thus, affirmed the conviction and sentence.

MCL 500.3114(2)(c) prioritizes vehicles “operated in the business of transporting passengers” and contains a related carveout for “a bus operating under a government sponsored transportation program.” In this case, the Court of Appeals ruled that this subsection applies in this case, and it affirms the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant.

The Court of Appeals emphasized an important corollary; a trial court is obligated to grant summary disposition when there is no genuine issue of material facts. In this case, there is no such issue, given the amount of photographic and video footage of the incident, no reasonable juror could find that the bus driver was more at fault than the plaintiff.