Michigan Supreme Court Court Cases
Maiden v. Rozwood (1999)
Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Santiago Rios, Jessica E. LePine and Michael C. McDaniel, Assistant Attorneys General, Lansing, for defendants-appellants in Maiden.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: Docket Nos. 107936, 110035, Calendar Nos. 14, 15
People v. Carines (1999)
Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, William A. Forsyth, Prosecuting Attorney, Timothy K. McMorrow, Chief Appellate Attorney, and Vicki L. Seidl, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Grand Rapids, for the people.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 110218, Calendar No. 3
Toussaint v. Blue Cross (1980)Charles Toussaint was employed in a middle management position with Blue Cross and Walter Ebling was similarly employed by Masco. After being employed five and two years, respectively, each was discharged. They commenced actions against their former employers, claiming that the discharges violated their employment agreements which permitted discharge only for cause. A verdict of $72,835.52 was rendered for Toussaint and a verdict of $300,000 for Ebling whose discharge left him ineligible to [...]
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: Docket Nos. 60917, 60907. (Calendar Nos. 5, 4)
We granted leave to appeal in this case to decide whether noise, dust, vibration, and fumes experienced by owners of property along an interstate freeway constitute a taking of a recognized property interest where the effects alleged are not unique or peculiar in character. We hold that such effects do not constitute a taking of a recognized property interest where the plaintiff fails to allege that the damages incurred are unique, special, or peculiar, or in some way different in kind or [...]
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 104096, Calender No. 15
People v. Drohan (2005)
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 12, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the issue whether Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), apply to Michigan's sentencing scheme. See People v. Claypool, 470 Mich. 715, 730 n 14, 684 N.W.2d 278 (2004).
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 127489, COA No. 249995
People v. Ginther (1973)
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Harvey Koselka, Prosecuting Attorney (Thomas R. Lewis and James D. Hunter, of counsel), for the people.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 5 May Term 1973, Docket No. 54,099
Robinson v. City of Detroit (2000)In these consolidated cases we are required yet again to consider the parameters of civil liability for governmental agencies and police officers when a police chase results in injuries or death to a person other than the driver of the fleeing vehicle. More specifically, the question in these cases is whether the city of Detroit or individual police officers face civil liability for injuries sustained by passengers in vehicles fleeing from the police when the fleeing car caused an accident. As [...]
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: Docket Nos. 110360, 107421, Calendar Nos. 1, 2
Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, J. Peter Lark and Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Assistant Attorneys General, Special Litigation Division, Lansing, for Michigan Public Service Commission and the state of Michigan.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 112363, 112364, and 112367-112369, Calendar No. 12
This case again calls into question the authority of courts to create terms and conditions at variance with those unambiguously and mandatorily stated in a statute. We reaffirm that the duty of the courts of this state is to apply the actual terms of an unambiguous statute.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 116573
People v. Babcock (2003)We granted leave to appeal in this case to consider whether the trial court articulated a substantial and compelling reason, as required under M.C.L. § 769.34(3), to justify its downward departure from the statutory sentencing guidelines. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in departing from the guidelines and, thus, affirmed defendant's sentence. The Court of Appeals concluded that some of the trial court's reasons for departing from the statutory [...]
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 121310
Sun Valley Foods Co. v. Ward (1999)In this legal malpractice action involving an underlying landlord-tenant dispute, we granted leave to determine whether the tolling provisions in M.C.L. § 600.5744(5); MSA 27A.5744(5) require the filing of an appeal bond within ten days after entry of the judgment awarding possession to the landlord. Because the statute does not require the filing of an appeal bond within ten days, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 108676, Calendar No. 5
Smith v. Globe Life Ins. Co. (1999)
This case involves a dispute regarding defendant insurer's avoidance of a credit life and disability insurance policy on the ground that the insured made misrepresentations concerning his health on the application.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 110065, Calendar No. 7
This case requires that we interpret a statute directing coordination of unemployment benefits with pension benefits. Plaintiff received a lump-sum pension payment under an employer-funded retirement plan. When plaintiff sought unemployment compensation, the Unemployment Agency coordinated her weekly benefits with her prorated weekly amount of pension payments (i.e., the amount of pension benefits plaintiff would have received weekly had she not opted for a lump-sum payment). The ensuing [...]
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 116366
People v. Lukity (1999)
Frank J. Kelley, Prosecuting Attorney, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Carl J. Marlinga, Prosecuting Attorney, Robert John Berlin, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Edward L. Graham, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Mount Clemens, for the people.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 110737, Calendar No. 5
The plaintiff insured a manufactured home that burned in 1991. As subrogee of the owners, the plaintiff sued the manufacturer. The circuit court granted summary disposition in favor of the manufacturer, relying on a statute of repose. The Court of Appeals reversed the summary disposition, but we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the summary disposition in favor of the manufacturer.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 108377
In this case, the trial court dismissed plaintiff's claim pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et seq.; M.S.A. § 3.548(101) et seq., on defendant's motion for summary disposition. We hold that the trial court properly found that plaintiff had failed to sufficiently support a prima facie case of hostile work environment with documentary evidence and therefore affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the findings of the trial court.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 99057, Calendar No. 10
This case involves an action for damages. Plaintiffs allege that they were fraudulently induced into entering a franchise agreement with defendant by the representations of defendant's agents that plaintiff Hi-Way Motor Company would be the exclusive heavy-duty truck dealership in the Alpena area.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 56828, (Calendar No. 13)
People v. Aaron (1980)
William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward Reilly Wilson, Principal Attorney, Appeals, and Don W. Atkins, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people in Aaron.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: Docket Nos. 57376, 61140, 61194. (Calendar Nos. 3-5)
Rory v. Continental Ins. Co. (2005)
Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and David W. Silver, Assistant Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for amici curiae Linda A. Walters, Commissioner of the Office of Financial and Insurance Services, Department of Labor & Economic Growth.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 126747
In this case, we must decide whether the Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) properly analyzed two statutory provisions of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), M.C.L. § 418.101 et seq.; MSA 17.237(101) et seq. The first provision allows an injured employee the opportunity to request an increased benefit rate after two years of continuous disability if the employee's earnings would have been expected to increase because of certain enumerated factors. MCL 418.356(1); [...]
Court: Michigan Supreme Court Docket: 112083, Calendar No. 11