The trial court’s amended order didn’t correct the clerical error under MCR 2.612(A)(1) because the correction “substantially changed” the initial order.

The affidavits in this case were deficient in showing a mistaken belief of fact by the plaintiff and failing to address the due diligence requirement in uncovering the newly discovered evidence, the Trial Court erred in failing to dismiss the case.

The trial court properly awarded the divorced parties’ one remaining frozen embryo to the ex-husband, a split Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In addition to improperly granting summary disposition, the Trial Court legally erred in finding that the objection to sharing of referral fees under MRPC 1.5(e) was timely.

The Michigan Supreme Court’s recent decisions in previous cases operates retroactively and applies to all cases currently pending on direct appeal.

Respondent-father had the ability to provide “consistent support though not ample support” for his children while he was incarcerated but did not do so.

Summary disposition was prematurely granted to the defendant in this dispute over attorney referral fees because discovery “had not begun in earnest”.

A cross-appeal was unnecessary in this FOIA case in order for the defendant-city to suggest an alternative ground for affirming the lower court’s decision.

The case of In re Holbrook, Minor - which involves alleged parental neglect and the statutory grounds for taking jurisdiction over a minor child - is moot.

Louisiana’s state bar violated 1st Amendment rights by spending dues on speech that is not related to regulating lawyers or improving legal services.

Judges “have an ethical obligation to maintain competence with and further educate themselves on advancing technology, including but not limited to AI”.

The trial court gave a Georgia custody order proper effect by granting the parties joint legal custody while omitting the order’s tie-breaking authority provision.

The trial court in this case properly revoked the father’s paternity to the minor child under the Revocation of Paternity Act (ROPA), the Michigan COA ruled.

A judge was not entitled to judicial immunity after she paused a court hearing to go personally participate in a warrantless search of a litigant’s home.

Clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate the mother’s parental rights in this case and doing so was in the child’s best interest.

Termination of a mother’s parental rights overruled by Michigan COA, due to trial court overemphasizing the mother’s use of marijuana.

The trial court erroneously held that statutory grounds for terminating the respondents’ parental rights had been established by clear and convincing evidence.

The trial court’s decision to suspend Mother’s parenting time had the effect of modifying the award of joint physical custody in the consent judgment of divorce, and MCR 3.207 did not apply to the case.