Justia Michigan Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Michigan Coalition of State Employee Unions and others brought an action in the Court of Claims against the State and various state agencies and officers, alleging that portions of 2011 PA 264, which amended the State Employees’ Retirement Act (SERA, MCL 38.1 et seq.), were unconstitutional because the resulting changes to retirement benefits altered rates of compensation or conditions of employment, which were within the exclusive authority of the Civil Service Commission to regulate. The Court of Claims granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that SERA retirement benefits were properly classified as both “rates of compensation” and “conditions of employment,” neither of which was subject to legislative alteration. The Supreme Court reversed. "While the [Civil Service Commission] has considerable constitutional powers to manage the civil service system and to preserve its sphere of constitutional authority, the commission has no legislative powers. It may neither enact legislation nor revise an enactment, nor may it dictate that the Legislature repeal or modify an enactment. Therefore, we hold that because the commission has acquiesced in the application of SERA to the employees of the civil service system, plaintiff’s objections fail to establish a basis for relief." View "Michigan Coalition of State Employee Unions v. Michigan" on Justia Law

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and others brought an action in the Court of Appeals against Nino Green and other members of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission, the Governor, and the Attorney General, seeking a declaratory judgment that portions of 2012 PA 349 (which amended the public employment relations act (PERA, MCL 423.201 et seq.), to prohibit public employers from requiring their employees to join a union or pay union-related expenses) were unconstitutional with respect to employees in the classified state civil service. The Court of Appeals held that the challenged portions of 2012 PA 349 were constitutional. Although the Supreme Court concluded that public collective bargaining was a method by which the Civil Service Commission (could choose to exercise its constitutional duties, the Court held that the commission could not effectively require civil servants to fund the commission’s own administrative operations. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals on different grounds. View "UAW v. Green" on Justia Law

Richard Hartwick was charged with manufacturing marijuana and possessing it with the intent to deliver it. Hartwick was a registered qualifying patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA). He served as his own primary caregiver and the primary caregiver for five other registered qualifying patients to whom he was properly connected under the MMMA. The police, acting on a tip, confronted Hartwick and later conducted a consent search of his home where the police discovered a disputed number of marijuana plants and approximately 3.69 ounces of marijuana. Hartwick moved to dismiss the charges, claiming immunity under section 4 of the MMMA, and the affirmative defense under section 8. In the alternative, Hartwick sought permission to present a section 8 defense at trial. The trial court denied the motions. Robert Tuttle was charged with three counts of delivering marijuana, one count of manufacturing marijuana, one count of possessing marijuana with the intent to deliver it, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Tuttle was a registered qualifying patient under the MMMA who served as his own primary caregiver. It was unclear whether he was properly connected as the primary caregiver to one or two other registered qualifying patients. Tuttle was arrested for selling marijuana on three occasions to an individual with whom Tuttle was not properly connected under the MMMA. Tuttle claimed immunity under section 4 and the affirmative defense under section 8 of the MMMA. The trial court rejected both claims and denied Tuttle’s request to present a section 8 defense at trial. According to the court, immunity was not appropriate because Tuttle’s illegal conduct (selling marijuana to an individual outside the protection of the MMMA) tainted Tuttle’s conduct with regard to the other charges. The trial court denied Tuttle use of the affirmative defense in section 8 because Tuttle failed to present prima facie evidence of each element of the defense. The Michigan Supreme Court granted certiorari review in these cases, not "to limit or extend the [MMMA's] words," but "merely bring them meaning derived from the plain language of the statute." After review of the specific facts of each defendant's case and their claims of immunity under the MMMA, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) the Court of Appeals properly held that Hartwick was not entitled to raise the affirmative defense under section 8 because he failed to present prima facie evidence of each element of the defense; (2) the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that Tuttle’s unprotected conduct with the unconnected individual tainted what might otherwise be protected conduct on which additional separate charges were based; (3) the Court of Appeals properly held that Tuttle could not claim the affirmative defense under section 8 because he failed to establish prima facie evidence of at least one of the elements of the defense for each of his possibly connected patients. For Hartwick, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine Hartwick's entitlement to section 4 immunity. For Tuttle, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded to the trial court to determine Tuttle's entitlement to section 4 immunity. View "Michigan v. Hartwick" on Justia Law

Adam Stevens was convicted by jury of second-degree murder and second-degree child abuse. The charges stemmed from the death of defendant’s three-month-old son, Kian. The prosecution alleged that defendant caused Kian’s death by either shaking him or slamming him against an object. Defendant alleged that he tripped and fell while holding Kian, and that as he fell, he lost control of Kian, who fell to the floor. Defendant denied shaking or slamming Kian. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences. On appeal, defendant argued that he was denied a fair trial because the trial judge, through his questioning of defendant and defendant’s expert, demonstrated partiality in front of the jury. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that the trial judge’s conduct with respect to defendant’s expert witness pierced the veil of judicial impartiality, depriving defendant of the right to a fair trial. View "Michigan v. Stevens" on Justia Law

Brandon Cain was of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of torture, two counts of unlawful imprisonment, carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. At the start of the trial, the court stated to the jury, “I will now ask you to stand and swear to perform your duty to try the case justly and to reach a true verdict.” The court clerk then proceeded to swear in the jury, but mistakenly read the oath given to prospective jurors before voir dire (that they would answer the questions concerning juror qualifications truthfully) rather than the juror’s oath set forth in MCR 2.511(H)(1). There was no objection to the failure to administer the proper oath. Defendant raised the issue of failing to properly swear the jury for the first time on appeal, moving for peremptory reversal of his convictions. The Court of Appeals granted the motion in an unpublished order, concluding that the failure to properly swear the jury was a structural error requiring a new trial. The prosecution sought leave to appeal, which the Supreme Court granted. Because the jurors were conscious of the gravity of the task before them and the manner in which that task was to be carried out, the two primary purposes served by the juror’s oath, the Supreme Court concluded the error of failing to properly swear the jury in this case did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. As such, the Court reversed the appellate court's ruling. View "Michigan v. Cain" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether and to what extent (if any) an electric utility was entitled to the industrial-processing tax exemption for tangible personal property located outside its generation plants. The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was entitled to the full industrial-processing exemption for the property. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the property subject to this suit was simultaneously used for exempt “industrial processing” activity under MCL 205.94o(7)(a) and nonexempt “distribution” and “shipping” activities under MCL 205.94o(6)(b). In these circumstances, the taxpayer was entitled to the industrial-processing exemption based on the “percentage of exempt use to total use determined by a reasonable formula or method approved by the department [of Treasury].” MCL 205.94o(2). Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Court of Claims for further proceedings. View "Detroit Edison Co. v. Dept. of Treasury" on Justia Law

In 2007, plaintiff Lisa Tyra received a kidney transplant at defendant William Beaumont Hospital, with a kidney made available by defendant Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan. Plaintiff allegedly suffered complications because the kidney did not constitute a proper match, and she filed suit asserting defendants should have identified this fact before the surgery. When plaintiff filed her complaint, the 182-day notice period set forth in MCL 600.2912b(1) had not yet expired. Organ Procurement moved for summary disposition on the basis that plaintiff’s complaint was filed prematurely, and the period of limitations had since expired. The hospital and Dr. Steven Cohn, the transplant surgeon, joined the motion and the trial court later granted the motion. The trial court reasoned that, under "Burton v Reed City Hosp Corp," (691 NW2d 424 (2005)), the prematurely filed complaint failed to toll the running of the period of limitations and plaintiff could not cure the error by refiling the complaint. The legal issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the controlling caselaw authority governing this case, "Zwiers v Growney," (778 NW2d 81 (2009)), was overruled by the Michigan Supreme Court in "Driver v Naini," (802 NW2d 311 (2011)). The Court of Appeals held that Zwiers was not overruled in Driver. Because the Supreme Court concluded to the contrary, it reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part in both "Tyra v Organ Procurement Agency of Mich," (850 NW2d 667 (2013)), and "Furr v McLeod," (848 NW2d 465 (2014)). In "Tyra," the Court reinstated the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition, and in "Furr," the Court remanded the case back to the trial court for entry of an order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition. View "Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan" on Justia Law

Defendant Joseph Miller was convicted by a jury of operating while intoxicated (OWI), and operating while intoxicated causing serious impairment of another person’s body function (OWI-injury), for an accident that resulted when he grabbed the steering wheel of the car that his girlfriend was driving. The trial court sentenced defendant to two concurrent terms of five years’ probation, with the first nine months to be served in jail. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction for OWI-injury but vacated defendant’s OWI conviction on the ground that it violated defendant’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court granted the prosecution’s application for leave to appeal. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy by convicting defendant of both OWI and OWI-injury. "When read as a whole, MCL 257.625 expresses a clear legislative intent not to allow conviction of and punishment for multiple offenses arising from the same incident except where explicitly authorized by the statute, and MCL 257.625(1) and MCL 257.625(5) do not specifically authorize multiple punishments." The Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeals correctly vacated defendant’s conviction, but for the wrong reason. View "Michigan v. Miller" on Justia Law

n consolidated appeals, the issue central to all that was presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether petitioners, who sold their principal residences in arm’s-length transactions, were entitled to refunds of the real estate transfer tax under the real estate transfer tax exemption set forth in MCL 207.526(u) when the state equalized value of the properties at the time of sale was less than it was at the time of their original purchases. The Court held that petitioners were entitled to refunds under the real estate transfer tax exemption in these circumstances. The Court of Appeals was reversed and the cases remanded to the Tax Tribunal for further proceedings, including reinstatement of its judgments in favor of petitioners. View "Gardner v. Dept. of Treasury" on Justia Law

Defendant Leo Ackley was convicted by jury of first-degree felony murder and first-degree child abuse after his live-in girlfriend's three-year-old child died under his care. At trial, the prosecution called five medical experts who testified that the child had died as the result of a head injury that was caused intentionally, while defense counsel called no experts, despite having been provided court funding for expert assistance and the name of a well-known forensic pathologist who could support the defense theory that the injuries had resulted from an accidental fall. Defendant appealed, arguing he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel for his lawyer's failure to challenge the government's experts. Contrary to the Court of Appeals' decision in this case, the Michigan Supreme Court concluded that defense counsel’s failure to attempt to engage a single expert witness to rebut the prosecution’s expert testimony, or to attempt to consult an expert with the scientific training to support the defendant’s theory of the case, fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and created a reasonable probability that this error affected the outcome of the defendant’s trial. Defendant's convictions were vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Michigan v. Ackley" on Justia Law