Justia Michigan Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Hark Orchids, LP (plaintiff) filed a legal malpractice action against its former attorney and law firm, William Buie and Conklin Benham, PC (defendants). In 2015, defendants represented plaintiff in a workers’ compensation lawsuit brought by a former employee. During the litigation, the former employee informed defendants of additional claims against plaintiff and offered a global settlement for $125,000. Defendants did not inform plaintiff of this offer and settled only the workers’ compensation claim for $35,823.84. Subsequently, the former employee filed another lawsuit against plaintiff, leading to significant additional legal fees for plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that these fees would have been avoided if defendants had informed them of the global settlement offer.The Kalamazoo Circuit Court granted summary disposition in favor of defendants, reasoning that under the American rule, attorney fees are not recoverable as damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that the American rule barred the recovery of attorney fees as damages in this context. Judge Shapiro concurred, noting that the decision was mandated by precedent but questioned the applicability of the rule given the acceptance of these damages in other states.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that while the American rule generally prohibits the recovery of attorney fees incurred in litigation, it does not apply to attorney fees that are damages resulting from legal malpractice. The Court clarified that clients can recover reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred to mitigate the harm caused by legal malpractice. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to determine if plaintiff could prove the malpractice and the reasonableness of the attorney fees incurred. View "Hark Orchids LP v. Buie" on Justia Law

The defendant, a 16-year-old student, was charged with assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH) under an aiding and abetting theory. The incident involved two other students, TI and CB, who attacked the victim by hitting and kicking him. The defendant did not participate in the physical attack but recorded the incident on his cell phone and shared the video with other students. The prosecution argued that the defendant's recording of the attack encouraged the assailants. Instead of filing a juvenile petition, the prosecution sought to try the defendant as an adult under the automatic waiver statute, arguing that the shoes worn by the assailants were used as dangerous weapons.The 53rd District Court found probable cause to believe that the defendant had aided and abetted the assault and bound him over to the criminal division of the circuit court. The circuit court denied the defendant's motion to quash the bindover and dismiss the charges, concluding that a shoe could be used as a dangerous weapon. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision, with a dissenting opinion arguing that the shoes did not constitute dangerous weapons and that the defendant was not armed with a dangerous weapon.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that for the criminal division of the circuit court to have jurisdiction under the automatic waiver statute, the juvenile defendant must be armed with a dangerous weapon. The Court found no evidence that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon during the assault. Consequently, the statutory requirements for automatic waiver were not met, and the criminal division of the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over the defendant. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the case to the circuit court to grant the defendant's motion to quash the bindover and transfer the case to the family division of the circuit court. View "People Of Michigan v. Oslund" on Justia Law

During an altercation at a party, the defendant pushed the victim in the chest, causing the victim's chest to bleed. Although no one saw the defendant with a knife, the victim's treating physicians concluded that the victim had been stabbed. The defendant was convicted by a jury of assault with intent to do great bodily harm (AWIGBH) and felonious assault.The Isabella Circuit Court sentenced the defendant to concurrent prison terms of 5 to 10 years for AWIGBH and 2 to 4 years for felonious assault. The defendant appealed, and the Michigan Court of Appeals vacated the felonious assault conviction, reasoning that convictions for both AWIGBH and felonious assault were inconsistent because the offenses are mutually exclusive. The prosecutor then applied for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which granted the application.The Michigan Supreme Court held that the defendant's convictions for both AWIGBH and felonious assault did not violate double-jeopardy protections because the AWIGBH statute authorizes multiple punishments for the same conduct. The court noted that the AWIGBH statute explicitly states that it does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law arising out of the same conduct. Therefore, the conflicting intent requirements of the two statutes did not render the convictions mutually exclusive. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent it addressed the mutually exclusive verdicts doctrine and reinstated the defendant's conviction of felonious assault. View "People of Michigan v. Mckewen" on Justia Law

In 2015, the defendant drove his vehicle on a freeway while speeding and under the influence of alcohol and controlled substances. He struck the back of another vehicle, resulting in the deaths of two individuals and serious injuries to three others. The defendant was convicted by a jury in the Genesee Circuit Court of multiple charges, including two counts of involuntary manslaughter and two counts of reckless driving causing death.On direct appeal, the defendant argued for the first time that his convictions violated the multiple-punishments strand of double jeopardy, specifically challenging the convictions for both involuntary manslaughter and reckless driving causing death. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s convictions.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that under Michigan common law, the mens rea requirement for reckless driving causing death (willful or wanton disregard) is the same as the mens rea requirement for involuntary manslaughter (criminal gross negligence). Therefore, when an involuntary manslaughter charge is based on a theory of gross negligence, the offense does not have an element that reckless driving causing death does not have. Consequently, the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions prohibit convicting a defendant of both offenses. The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the appropriate remedy for the double-jeopardy violation. View "People of Michigan v. Fredell" on Justia Law

The case involves two groups of plaintiffs challenging several provisions in a 2022 manual issued by the Secretary of State, which provided instructions for election challengers and poll watchers. The plaintiffs argued that the provisions conflicted with the Michigan Election Law or required formal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The Court of Claims consolidated the cases and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on several points, finding that certain provisions of the manual were invalid under Michigan law.The Court of Claims found that the manual's requirements for election-challenger credentials, the communication restrictions between challengers and election inspectors, the categorization of challenges as permissible or impermissible, and the prohibition of electronic devices in absent voter ballot processing facilities violated the Michigan Election Law. The court ordered the Secretary of State to either rescind or revise the manual to comply with its opinion. The defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and issued a mixed ruling. The court held that the Secretary of State has the authority to require a uniform form for election-challenger credentials and that this requirement does not conflict with the Michigan Election Law. The court also upheld the manual's communication restrictions, except for the requirement that challengers at absent voter ballot processing facilities must raise issues to a challenger liaison who is not an election inspector. The court found that the categorization of challenges as permissible or impermissible was generally lawful but invalidated the provision allowing a challenger liaison to deem a challenge impermissible based on their assessment of its validity. The court declared the challenge to the prohibition of electronic devices moot due to subsequent statutory amendments and vacated the lower court's opinions on that issue. View "O'Halloran v. Secretary of State" on Justia Law

A 13-year-old boy, Jawad Jumaa, was diagnosed with torticollis at Garden City Hospital and discharged. He was found dead the next morning, and an autopsy revealed bacterial meningitis as the cause of death. His parents, as co-personal representatives of his estate, filed a complaint against the hospital and two doctors for negligence, medical malpractice, and nursing malpractice, seeking damages under the wrongful death act (WDA), including lost future earnings.The trial court denied the defendants' motion for summary disposition, which argued that lost future earnings were not recoverable under the WDA and that the plaintiffs had not proven such damages beyond speculation. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, relying on its previous ruling in Denney v Kent Co Rd Comm, which held that damages for lost future earnings were recoverable under the WDA. The Court of Appeals also concluded that the 1971 amendment to the WDA, which added the word "including," made the list of recoverable damages nonexhaustive and that the case Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm had implicitly overruled Baker v Slack.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the Court of Appeals erred by not applying Baker, which had not been clearly superseded by the Legislature or overruled by the Supreme Court. The Court reaffirmed Baker's holding that damages for lost earning capacity are not available under the WDA. The Court overruled Denney and Thorn v Mercy Mem Hosp Corp to the extent they were inconsistent with this opinion. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, Part II(B) of its opinion was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Wayne Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Estate Of Jumaa v. Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City LLC" on Justia Law

In 2018, Michigan's Legislature received initiative petitions proposing the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act and the Earned Sick Time Act. The Legislature adopted these initiatives without changes, preventing them from appearing on the ballot. However, during the lame duck session after the election, the Legislature significantly amended both laws, effectively nullifying their original intent.The plaintiffs challenged these amendments in the Court of Claims, arguing they were unconstitutional under Article 2, § 9 of the Michigan Constitution. The Court of Claims agreed, ruling that the Legislature could not adopt and then amend an initiative in the same session. The court declared the amendments void and reinstated the original initiatives. The state appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, holding that the Legislature could amend an initiative in the same session since the Constitution did not explicitly prohibit it.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that Article 2, § 9 provides the Legislature with only three options upon receiving a valid initiative petition: adopt it without change, reject it, or propose an alternative to be voted on alongside the original. The Court ruled that adopting and then amending an initiative in the same session violated the people's right to propose and enact laws through the initiative process. Consequently, the amendments were declared unconstitutional. The Court ordered that the original initiatives would go into effect 205 days after the opinion's publication, with adjustments for inflation and a revised schedule for minimum wage increases. The Court of Appeals' judgment was reversed. View "Mothering Justice v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the issuance of medical marijuana dispensary licenses in the city of Warren. In 2019, the Warren City Council adopted an ordinance to regulate these licenses, which involved a Review Committee scoring and ranking applications. The Review Committee held 16 closed meetings to review 65 applications and made recommendations to the city council, which then approved the top 15 applicants without further discussion. Plaintiffs, who were denied licenses, sued, alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) and due process.The Macomb Circuit Court found that the Review Committee violated the OMA and invalidated the licenses issued by the city council. The court held that the Review Committee was a public body subject to the OMA and that the city council's approval process was flawed. Defendants and intervening defendants appealed, and the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the Review Committee was not a public body under the OMA because it only had an advisory role, and the city council retained final decision-making authority. The appellate court also upheld the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' due process claims.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the Review Committee was a public body subject to the OMA because it effectively decided which applicants would receive licenses by scoring and ranking them, and the city council merely adopted these recommendations without independent consideration. The court emphasized that the actual operation of the Review Committee, rather than just the language of the ordinance, determined its status as a public body. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider whether the open meetings held by the Review Committee cured the OMA violations and to address other preserved issues. View "Pinebrook Warren LLC v. City Of Warren" on Justia Law

The case involves the Michigan Farm Bureau and other agricultural entities challenging new conditions imposed by the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) in a 2020 general permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The new conditions included stricter limits on phosphorus application, setback requirements, and a presumptive ban on waste application during certain months. The plaintiffs argued that these conditions exceeded EGLE’s statutory authority, were contrary to state and federal law, lacked factual justification, were arbitrary and capricious, unconstitutional, and invalid due to procedural failures under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act (APA).Initially, the plaintiffs sought a contested-case hearing to challenge the permit but then filed for declaratory judgment in the Court of Claims. EGLE moved for summary disposition, arguing that the plaintiffs had not exhausted administrative remedies. The Court of Claims agreed, dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision but held that the plaintiffs could seek a declaratory judgment under MCL 24.264, provided they first requested a declaratory ruling from EGLE, which they had not done.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the 2020 general permit and its discretionary conditions were not "rules" under the APA because EGLE lacked the statutory authority to issue rules related to NPDES permits for CAFOs. Consequently, the Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under MCL 24.264. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals but vacated its holding that the discretionary conditions were rules. The Court emphasized that EGLE must genuinely evaluate the necessity of discretionary conditions in individual cases and that these conditions do not have the force and effect of law. View "Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dept. Of Environment Great Lakes And Energy" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, current or retired public school superintendents and administrators, filed a lawsuit against the Office of Retirement Services (ORS) alleging that ORS violated the Public School Employees Retirement Act by using salary schedules it created to determine their retirement allowances. The plaintiffs, who worked under personal employment contracts rather than collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), argued that the Retirement Act did not authorize ORS to create these normal salary increase (NSI) schedules and apply them to their pension calculations.The Court of Claims granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants on all claims except for a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). After cross-motions for summary disposition, the Court of Claims also ruled in favor of the defendants on the APA claim. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that ORS lacked statutory authority to create NSI schedules and that MCL 38.1303a(3)(f) did not apply to employees under personal employment contracts. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the lack of authority for ORS to create NSI schedules but reversed the Court of Appeals' interpretation of MCL 38.1303a(3)(f), remanding the case for further proceedings.The Michigan Supreme Court held that the term "normal salary schedule" is a written document established by statute or approved by a reporting unit’s governing body, indicating the time and sequence of compensation, and applying to a generally applicable job classification rather than a specific employee. The Court clarified that this term is not limited to CBAs and applies to public school employees regardless of their employment contract type. The case was remanded to the Court of Claims to determine whether the plaintiffs were subject to a normal salary schedule as defined. View "Batista v. Office Of Retirement Services" on Justia Law