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.

The trial court violated MCR 1.111(B)(1) by 1) requiring Appellant to make multiple interpreter requests and 2) not allowing the present interpreter who qualified under MCR 1.111(F)(2) to be used. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals found that the record supports that it is not in DRRR’s best interests to return to Guatemala and should instead remain in Appellant’s custody in the United States.

The trial court properly awarded case-evaluation sanctions under now-eliminated Michigan Court Rule 2.403(O) because it “had discretion to apply the former court rule” under Michigan Court Rule 1.102 “and did not abuse that discretion,” the Michigan Supreme Court has held.

Judicial estoppel barred Plaintiff-Appellant's claims that depended on an ownership interest in the property, as she had previously denied such an interest in her bankruptcy petition. However, judicial estoppel did not preclude her claim for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit.

The Michigan Supreme Court will not decide a dispute over a divorced couple’s cryogenically frozen embryo, saying it was “not persuaded” the justices should review the issues presented.

The tolling amendment to the one-year-back rule in the no-fault act at MCL 500.3145 does not apply to claims for services which accrued before its effective date, even if a lawsuit was filed after its effective date.

In this suit contesting the validity of a divorce judgment, the trial court correctly held that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and, as a result, properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.