Justia Michigan Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Two cases consolidated for the Michigan Supreme Court's review involved premises liability, specifically slip-and-fall instances where plaintiffs both argued while the hazards were open and obvious, they were unavoidable. In Case No. 162907, Ahlam Kandil-Elsayed filed a negligence action based on premises liability after she slipped and fell at a gas station defendant F & E Oil, Inc. operated. Plaintiff argued snow and ice on the premises constituted a dangerous condition. In Case No. 163430, Renee Pinsky tripped over a cable that had been strung from a checkout counter to a display basket at a local Kroger supermarket. In both cases, defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that because the hazards were open and obvious and no special aspects were present, they owed no duty of care to plaintiffs. The trial court granted defendant's motion in the former case, but denied defendant's motion in the latter case. The respective losing parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed summary judgment in both cases: although defendants in both cases owed a duty to the respective injured plaintiffs, there remained genuine issues of fact that were relevant to whether the defendants breached that duty and if so, whether plaintiffs were comparatively at fault and should have their damages reduced. The judgments of the Court of Appeals were reversed, and both cases were remanded for further proceedings. View "Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Menayetta Yeager was convicted by jury of first-degree murder, and carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of her boyfriend, Jonte Brooks. In 2017, Brooks punched defendant in the face with a gun when defendant informed him, while they were sitting in defendant’s minivan, that she no longer wanted to be in a relationship with him. Brooks then pulled defendant out of the van by her hair and repeatedly hit her, after which he got back into defendant’s van and used it to chase after her, attempting to run her over before eventually driving away. A neighbor, who witnessed some of the encounter, went over to defendant and agreed to take her to try to retrieve her van. While defendant was talking on her cellphone with Brooks to make those arrangements, Brooks repeatedly threatened to kill both defendant and the neighbor. Ultimately, Brooks pulled into a gas station behind the neighbor’s vehicle, defendant got out of the neighbor’s vehicle during the continued argument with Brooks, and defendant pulled out a gun and shot at Brooks multiple times. Brooks ultimately died from a bullet wound to his chest. After appealing her conviction, the Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court for a Ginther hearing to determine whether trial counsel’s failure to request an instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense to murder constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. On remand, trial counsel testified that he did not request a voluntary manslaughter instruction because he believed that instruction to be mutually exclusive of the self-defense theory asserted at trial. The court then concluded that trial counsel erred by not requesting the voluntary manslaughter instruction because, had the instruction been requested, a reasonable juror could have found defendant was guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than first-degree murder. For that reason, the trial court granted a new trial. After remand, the prosecution cross-appealed the trial court order, arguing that trial counsel was not ineffective, and that even if he was, defendant had not been prejudiced. Finding no reversible error in the appellate court's judgment, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the grant of a new trial. View "Michigan v. Yeager" on Justia Law

Two freelance journalists, Spencer Woodman and George Joseph, brought separate actions at the Michigan Court of Claims against the Michigan Department of Corrections (the MDOC), arguing that the MDOC wrongfully denied their requests under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Plaintiffs sought video and audio recordings of a prisoner altercation that resulted in the death of inmate Dustin Szot. The MDOC denied their FOIA requests, claiming the records were exempt from disclosure. Plaintiffs and the MDOC both moved for summary judgment. The Court of Claims ordered the MDOC to disclose the audio recording to plaintiffs and to produce the videos for an in camera review. The trial court permitted the MDOC to submit the videos in a format that obscured the faces of the employees and prisoners in the videos to protect those individuals. However, the MDOC provided the unredacted videos for in camera review. The Court of Claims ultimately ordered the MDOC to disclose the unredacted videos to plaintiffs. The MDOC moved for reconsideration, arguing that it did not need to disclose the videos or, alternatively, that it should have been allowed to redact the videos by blurring the faces of the individuals in the videos. The Court of Claims denied the motion but nevertheless permitted the MDOC to make the requested redactions and permitted plaintiffs’ counsel to view both the redacted and unredacted videos. Plaintiffs challenged the trial court’s reduced amount of attorney fees and the denial of punitive damages. The MDOC cross-appealed, challenging only the trial court’s determination that plaintiffs prevailed in full and thus were entitled to attorney fees under FOIA. The Michigan Supreme Court determined plaintiffs prevailed under MCL 15.240(6) because the action was reasonably necessary to compel the disclosure of the records and because plaintiffs obtained everything they initially sought; accordingly, the court was required to award reasonable attorney fees. Furthermore, pro bono representation was not an appropriate factor to consider in determining the reasonableness of attorney fees; accordingly, the Court of Claims abused its discretion by reducing the attorney-fee award to plaintiffs' law firm on the basis of the firm's pro bono representation of plaintiffs. View "Woodman v. Department Of Corrections" on Justia Law

Carrie Pueblo brought an action against her former domestic partner, Rachel Haas seeking joint custody and parenting time for a child whom Haas conceived through in vitro fertilization and gave birth to in 2008, during the parties’ relationship. Haas moved for summary judgment, arguing that because the parties had never married and Pueblo had no biological or adoptive relationship to the child, Pueblo lacked standing to sue and also failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice. After Haas moved for reconsideration, the trial court dismissed the action with prejudice. Pueblo then filed her own motion for reconsideration, arguing that she had standing as a natural parent, despite the lack of genetic connection, following the Court of Appeals decision in LeFever v. Matthews, 336 Mich App 651 (2021), which expanded the definition of “natural parent” to include unmarried women who gave birth as surrogates but shared no genetic connection with the children. Pueblo also argued the trial court order violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection, as well as those of the child. Furthermore, Pueblo argued that any dismissal should have been without prejudice. The trial court denied reconsideration, distinguishing LeFever on the ground that Pueblo had not given birth to the child. Pueblo appealed, reasserting her previous arguments and further asserting that the equitable-parent doctrine should extend to the parties’ relationship, which had been solemnized in a civil commitment ceremony when it was not yet legal in Michigan for same-sex partners to marry. The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments and affirmed the trial court. Because Michigan unconstitutionally prohibited same-sex couples from marrying before Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US 644 (2015), the Michigan Supreme Court narrowly extended the equitable-parent doctrine as "a step toward righting the wrongs done by that unconstitutional prohibition. A person seeking custody who demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties would have married before the child’s conception or birth but for Michigan’s unconstitutional marriage ban is entitled to make their case for equitable parenthood to seek custody." The trial court's judgment was reversed and the case remanded for that court to apply the threshold test for standing announced here. View "Pueblo v. Haas" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs brought this action after the defendant modified a storm water drainage system, allegedly causing flooding onto their property. The plaintiffs raised two distinct claims that remained at issue on appeal: a claim under the sewage-disposal-system- event (SDSE) exception to governmental immunity under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), and a common-law trespass-nuisance claim seeking injunctive relief. The trial court dismissed both claims as untimely under the applicable three-year statute of limitations. Like the Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court disagreed, holding the SDSE claim, which sought relief only in connection with flooding that occurred within the three-year window, was timely. However, unlike the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court concluded that because the defendant was immune with respect to the plaintiffs’ common-law trespass-nuisance claim, that claim was properly dismissed. In light of this holding, the Court vacated as unnecessary the Court of Appeals’ holding that the trespass-nuisance claim was timely. Finally, because the plaintiffs only sought injunctive relief in connection with that claim, their request for an injunction was invalid. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant with respect to the plaintiff’s SDSE claim, affirmed with respect to the common-law trespass-nuisance claim, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sunrise Resort Association, Inc. v. Cheboygan County Road Commission" on Justia Law

The Macomb County Prosecutor sought to appeal the Parole Board’s grant of parole to Richard McBrayer, a prisoner under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections. The Parole Board intervened. In 1994, McBrayer pleaded guilty of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving his stepdaughter when she was 12 to 14 years old. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 20 to 40 years in prison; the minimum sentences represented the top of the then-controlling judicial sentencing guidelines range. McBrayer became eligible for parole in January 2010 after accumulating disciplinary credits through the years. In 2011, 2015, and 2018, the Parole Board granted McBrayer parole, but the board’s grant of parole was overturned each time after the victim, or the prosecutor, appealed. In 2020, the board again considered McBrayer for, and granted him, parole. McBrayer’s parole-guidelines score of +11, indicated a high probability of parole, and the board found facts to support the grant. The prosecutor again appealed the board’s decision. After reviewing the evidence in the record, the court reversed the board’s grant of parole, reasoning that there had been no improvement in McBrayer’s circumstances from the time he was last considered for parole. In a split unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s ruling, reasoning that there were substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the parole guidelines—namely, the heinous nature of the crimes, the impact of the crimes on the victim, skepticism about McBrayer’s rehabilitation, and concerns with the efficacy of his parole plans. The Michigan Supreme Court determined the Court of Appeals majority applied the wrong analysis and ignored the discretion that the Legislature has assigned to the Parole Board. Applying the proper analysis, the Supreme Court concluded the Parole Board did not abuse its discretion. The Court therefore reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Parole Board’s grant of parole. View "In re Parole of Richard Allen McBrayer" on Justia Law

Defendant Candace Guyton pled guilty to one count of armed robbery. As part of the plea deal, the prosecution agreed not to pursue charges against defendant in an unrelated case and to recommend a sentence within the guidelines minimum range of 51 to 85 months in prison. The prosecutor also agreed to dismiss the supplemental information charging defendant as a third-offense habitual offender. However, the amended felony information wrongly classified defendant as a third-felony offender by counting a single prior conviction twice; in fact, defendant was eligible to be charged only as a second-offense habitual offender. The trial court sentenced defendant at the top of the agreed-upon guidelines range to 84 months to 60 years in prison. Defendant later moved to withdraw her plea, arguing that it was involuntary and unknowing given that defendant was told she was avoiding a third-offense habitual-offender enhancement. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the prosecution that defendant had received benefit from the plea despite the error. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion. After its review, the Michigan Supreme Court determined the misinformation regarding defendant’s habitual-offender enhancement rendered defendant’s guilty plea involuntary and unknowing. Accordingly, the case had to be remanded to the trial court to give defendant the opportunity to elect to allow her plea to stand or withdraw her plea. View "Michigan v. Guyton" on Justia Law

Robert Yarbrough, Jr., was convicted by jury of: kidnapping; assault with intent to do great bodily harm; felonious assault; and three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. During voir dire, the trial court informed counsel for both parties that neither party would be allowed to exercise peremptory challenges to excuse any prospective jurors other than newly seated prospective jurors who had replaced those prospective jurors who had been previously dismissed. Defense counsel objected to the court’s policy and requested a new venire, but the court overruled counsel’s objection and a jury was empaneled. Defendant appealed his convictions and the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion. Defendant appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which initially held defendant’s application for leave to appeal in abeyance pending its decision in Michigan v. Kabongo, 507 Mich 78 (2021). Following its decision in Kabongo, the Court granted defendant’s application. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's policy was unconstitutional: "because the right to exercise peremptory challenges would be virtually eliminated by the application of that standard, automatic reversal is the appropriate remedy for the erroneous denial of a defendant’s peremptory challenge when the error was preserved and no curative action was taken." View "Michigan v. Yarbrough" on Justia Law

Candi Ottgen and her husband brought a medical malpractice action against Abdalmaijid Katranji, M.D., and others, alleging that Katranji had negligently performed two thumb surgeries on her, first on May 1, 2017, the second July 23, 2017. Plaintiffs filed their action on April 11, 2019, focusing their complaint on the first surgery, but they did not attach an affidavit of merit (AOM) to the complaint as required by MCL 600.2912d(1). On May 9, 2019, defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Scarsella v. Pollak, 461 Mich 547 (2000), which held that filing a medical malpractice complaint without an AOM was ineffective to commence the action and thereby toll the two-year statutory limitations period. Plaintiffs responded by filing an amended complaint with an AOM that had purportedly been executed on January 30, 2019, but was not attached to the original complaint because of a clerical error. Plaintiffs also separately requested permission to make the late filing and contended that it related back to the original complaint. The trial court held that Scarsella was inapplicable because the AOM was completed when the original complaint was filed and its omission from the filing was inadvertent. The trial court also permitted plaintiffs to file their late AOM and allowed it to relate back to the April 2019 complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Scarsella applied and, accordingly, that plaintiffs’ complaint was untimely with regard to the first surgery, rendering the April 2019 complaint ineffective and leaving nothing for the subsequently filed May 13, 2019 amended complaint to relate back to. The Michigan Supreme Court concluded Scarsella was erroneously decided and failed to survive a stare decisis analysis, and it was therefore overruled. "Filing an AOM under MCL 600.2912d(1) is not required to commence a medical malpractice action and toll the statutory limitations period. Instead, the normal tolling rules apply to medical malpractice actions, and tolling occurs upon the filing of a timely served complaint. A failure to comply with MCL 600.2912d(1) can still be a basis for dismissal of a case; however, the dismissal cannot be based on statute-of-limitations grounds." Because the courts below did not consider the nature of dismissals for violations of MCL 600.2912d(1), the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Ottgen v. Katranji" on Justia Law

Reyes Galvan and Minhwa Kim sued Yam Foo Poon, Hwai-Tzu Hong Poon, and Daniel Poon alleging fraud, misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, silent fraud, innocent misrepresentation, loss of consortium, and breach of a warranty deed. In 2017, plaintiffs bought a condominium in Ann Arbor from defendants, and defendants transferred title to plaintiffs via a warranty deed. The deed warranted, among other things, that pursuant to MCL 565.151, the property was “free from all incumbrances.” While renovating the condominium, plaintiffs learned of several issues with the property, including that there was no proper firewall between their condo and the neighboring units, and that one of the defendants had signed a unit-modification form indicating that a wall had been moved and that a neighboring unit encroached on the upstairs bathroom of plaintiffs’ unit. Because the absence of a firewall violated the city’s building code, the City of Ann Arbor sued plaintiffs and their adjoining neighbors to enforce the code and require installation of firewalls. Plaintiffs were ordered to pay $18,000, in part to bring the walls of their unit into compliance with the building code, and they also spent additional funds to remediate other problems with the property. During a jury trial, defendants moved for a directed verdict on plaintiffs’ breach-of-warranty claim, arguing that the building code violations were not an encumbrance. The trial court agreed and directed verdict in favor of defendants on this claim. The jury subsequently found in favor of plaintiffs regarding their claims of silent fraud and loss of consortium. Galvan appealed the directed verdict, and the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the building code violations constituted an encumbrance in violation of the warranty deed. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, finding that a violation of a building code at the time of sale, not yet subject to any official enforcement action, was not an encumbrance. View "Galvan v. Poon" on Justia Law