Justia Michigan Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

While working on a fall clean-up job for defendant All Star Specialists Plus, Inc., defendant Joseph Derry was loading leaves into a truck using a leaf vacuum machine when the machine tipped over, injuring him. At the time, All Star had three insurance policies issued by Auto-Owners Insurance Company: (1) a commercial general liability policy, (2) a commercial automobile insurance (no-fault) policy, and (3) a commercial workers’ compensation policy. The general liability policy excludes from coverage “[a]ny obligation of the insured under a workers[’] compensation . . . law,” and the no-fault policy excludes coverage for “any expenses that would be payable under any workers[’] compensation law . . . .” Derry brought a negligence suit against All Star and one of its owners, Jeffery Harrison, for his injuries and sued Auto-Owners for no-fault benefits. Plaintiff Auto-Owners later filed this declaratory judgment action, seeking a determination that Derry was an employee of All Star and, thus, that the only insurance coverage available was under the workers’ compensation policy. The trial court concluded that because it was uncontroverted that Derry held himself out to the public to perform the same services as the work he performed for All Star, Derry was an independent contractor at the time of his injury and not an employee, and that Derry was therefore entitled to coverage under Auto-Owners’ general liability and no-fault policies. The court denied Auto-Owners’ motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Derry. Auto-Owners appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part. The panel affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that Derry was an independent contractor for purposes of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA). However, the panel only reached this conclusion because it was bound under MCR 7.215(J)(1) to follow the Court of Appeals’ prior decision in "Amerisure." A special panel was convened, and in a published 4-3 decision, the majority reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Derry and, thus, its determination that Derry was an independent contractor. Because the Supreme Court believed the term “employee” as defined in the WDCA was properly interpreted in "Amerisure," the Court reversed the Court of Appeals. View "Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. All Star Lawn Specialists Plus, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who was injured while working in Genesee County, filed a workers’ compensation claim. While his claim was pending, defendants, in their capacity as administrators of the workers’ compensation hearing system, advised plaintiff that the Genesee County hearing site where plaintiff’s case was assigned would be closed and that all pending cases from the county, including plaintiff’s, would be transferred to the State Secondary Complex in Dimondale, which is about 70 miles away in Eaton County. Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel defendants to maintain the Genesee County hearing site. The trial court granted mandamus relief, and in a divided and published opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a writ of mandamus compelling defendants to ensure that hearings in workers’ compensation cases were held in the county in which the alleged injury occurred. The Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals, finding that plaintiff did not have a clear legal right to a hearing in Genesee County. Defendants, accordingly, did not have a clear legal obligation to hold the hearing there either. The trial court was reversed, and direct to enter judgment denying plaintiff's complaint for mandamus. View "Younkin v. Zimmer" on Justia Law

Michele Dupree sued Auto-Owners Insurance Company, seeking to recover, under her homeowners’ insurance policy, the full cost of repair or replacement for the personal property that was destroyed in a fire at her home. Because the parties did not agree on the extent of the personal property loss, the parties submitted separate appraisals to an umpire under the process set forth in the insurance policy. The umpire issued an appraisal award that set forth the full replacement cost, the applicable depreciation, and the actual cash value loss of the property. Defendant paid plaintiff the actual cash value of the property but refused to pay the full replacement cost on the ground that plaintiff had failed to submit proof, in accordance with the replacement-cost provision of her insurance policy, that she had actually replaced the damaged property. The court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to plaintiff. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, affirmed in an unpublished opinion per curiam. On appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether plaintiff’s appraisal award entitled her to only the actual cash value of her damaged personal property or whether defendant was liable for the full replacement cost of that property, i.e., actual cash value plus the applicable depreciation amount. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that plaintiff was not entitled to the full replacement cost of her property because she did not submit proof of actual loss in accordance with her policy. Defendant was liable for only the actual cash value of plaintiff’s damaged personal property. View "Dupree v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Defendant Benjamin Taub founded Dataspace, Incorporated, in 1994. In 2002, Taub hired plaintiff Rama Madugula as vice president of sales and business development for Dataspace. Around this time, Dataspace also hired an individual named Andrew Flower. Taub was Dataspace's sole shareholder until 2004, when Madugula and Flower became part owners, with Madugula purchasing 29% of the outstanding shares and Flower purchasing 20%. Pursuant to a stockholders agreement, Taub became president, secretary, and treasurer of Dataspace, while Madugula and Flower became vice presidents. After becoming a shareholder, Madugula continued to work for Dataspace. In 2007, Flower exercised his right under the buy-sell agreement and voluntarily withdrew from Dataspace. Taub and Madugula purchased Flower's shares, increasing Madugula's interest to about 36% of the shares. Around this time, with Dataspace allegedly struggling, Taub switched the focus of Dataspace to marketing a new product that it developed called JPAS, a software platform. At the time, Madugula did not object to the new focus. In August 2007, Taub terminated Madugula's employment with Dataspace. Because of his termination, Madugula no longer received a salary from Dataspace, but he maintained his board position and his interest in the company. Madugula sued Taub and Dataspace, asserting: (1) shareholder; (2) breach of the duty of good faith; (3) common-law fraud and misrepresentation; (4) exemplary damages; (5) an appointment of a receiver; and (6) an accounting of Dataspace. Madugula sought damages, the removal of Taub as a director of Dataspace, the appointment of a receiver to protect the value of his stock in Dataspace, an accounting of Dataspace, and all other relief that he was entitled to in equity or law. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Taub and Dataspace, dismissing all counts against them except Madugula's claim of shareholder oppression. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that the plaint language of Michigan's shareholder-oppression statute, did not afford a claimant a right to a jury trial and, instead, expressed a legislative intent to have shareholder-oppression claims heard by a court of equity. Furthermore, the Court held that violations of a shareholder agreement may constitute evidence of shareholder oppression pursuant to the statute. Because the trial court erred by submitting plaintiff's claim to the jury and allowing it to award an equitable remedy, the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff. View "Madugula v. Taub" on Justia Law

International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) brought an action in the Court of Claims against the Department of Treasury to challenge the department's ruling that IBM was not entitled to apportion its business income tax base and modified gross receipts tax base using a three-factor apportionment formula provided in the Multistate Tax Compact (MCL 205.581 et seq.) and was instead required to apportion its income using the sales-factor formula in the Business Tax Act (MCL 208.1101 et seq.) when calculating its state taxes for 2008. IBM moved for summary judgment under MCR 2.116(C)(10), and the department moved for summary judgment under MCR 2.116(I)(2). After a hearing, the Court of Claims denied IBM's motion and granted the department's motion, holding that the BTA mandated the use of the sales-factor apportionment formula. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion per curiam. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that IBM was entitled to use the Compact's three-factor apportionment formula for its 2008 Michigan taxes and that the Court of Appeals erred by holding otherwise on the basis of its erroneous conclusion that the Legislature had repealed the Compact's election provision by implication when it enacted the BTA. Furthermore, the Court held that IBM could use the Compact's apportionment formula for that portion of its tax base subject to the modified gross receipts tax of the BTA. View "International Business Machines Corp. v. Dept. of Treasury" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Jeffery Douglas of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (victim under the age of 13) and second-degree criminal sexual conduct (victim under the age of 13). The charges arose from statements by his daughter, KD, that defendant had made her touch his penis on one occasion and perform fellatio on him on a separate occasion. Defendant appealed, challenging the admission of certain testimony and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals held that defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel during both the pretrial and trial proceedings and that the cumulative effect of the trial errors denied him a fair trial. The Court of Appeals vacated defendant's convictions and sentences and remanded the case to the trial court for reinstatement of a plea offer made by the prosecution before trial. The Court of Appeals ordered that if defendant refused to accept the plea offer, he was entitled to a new trial. The State appealed. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that a new trial was warranted in light of the errors by both the court and defense counsel at trial. The Court held, however, that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the prosecution’s prior plea offer must be reinstated, as the Supreme Court saw no reversible error in the trial court’s determination to the contrary. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Michigan v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Levon Bynum was charged with first-degree murder, two counts of assault with intent to murder, carrying a concealed weapon, and felony-firearm following a shooting that had occurred outside a party store in Battle Creek. Bynum and some of the others present were alleged to be members of the Boardman Boys gang, whose territory bordered the party store. Bynum claimed that he acted in self-defense. An officer in the Battle Creek Police Department's Gang Suppression Unit, was proffered at trial as an expert witness on gangs, gang membership, and gang culture with a particular expertise about Battle Creek gangs. The court allowed the officer's testimony and his PowerPoint presentation, concluding that the evidence was relevant to prove Bynum's motive for shooting the victims. Defense counsel did not specifically object to any of this testimony after the initial, general objection to the testimony, and the jury found Bynum guilty as charged. Bynum's appellate defense counsel subsequently moved for a new trial, arguing the ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to the officer's testimony as improper propensity evidence. The court rejected the ineffective-assistance claim because it was satisfied that trial counsel's objections had preserved the claimed error in the testimony. The court also held that the expert witness testimony was appropriate. Bynum appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed Bynum's convictions in an unpublished opinion per curiam. The Supreme Court held that if the prosecution presents fact evidence to show that the crime at issue is gang-related, expert testimony about gangs, gang membership, and gang culture may be admitted as relevant under MRE 402 and of "assist[ance] [to] the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue" under MRE 702. In applying MRE 402 and MRE 702 to the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court appropriately exercised its role as gatekeeper in determining that expert testimony about gangs and gang culture would assist the jury in understanding the evidence. The Court also held that MRE 404(a) precludes testimony that is specifically used to show that, on a particular occasion, a gang member acted in conformity with character traits commonly associated with gang members. The expert witness in this case exceeded these limitations when he provided his opinion that defendant committed the crimes at issue because he acted in conformity with his gang membership. The Court therefore affirmed the result of the Court of Appeals and remanded this case to the Circuit Court for a new trial. View "Michigan v. Bynum " on Justia Law

The issue these cases presented to the Supreme Court were: (1) whether "Miller v Alabama," (132 S Ct 2455 (2012)), should have been applied retroactively (pursuant to either the federal or state test for retroactivity) to cases in which the defendant's sentence became final for purposes of direct appellate review before Miller was decided; and (2) whether the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Const 1963, art 1, section 16 categorically barred the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile homicide offender. Defendant Raymond Carp was 15 years old when he participated in the 2006 bludgeoning and stabbing of Mary Ann McNeely. He was charged with first-degree murder and tried as an adult. A jury convicted Carp of this offense, and in accordance with the law at the time he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Because Carp did not seek review in the United States Supreme Court, his conviction and sentence became final for the purposes of direct appellate review in June, 2009. Defendant Cortez Davis was 16 years old at the time of his offense. Along with a cohort, while brandishing firearms, Davis accosted two individuals in Detroit for the purpose of robbery. Two witnesses testified that when one of the victims attempted to flee, Davis and his cohort fired five or six shots, killing the victim. Davis was charged with felony first-degree murder and convicted by a jury. At sentencing, the trial court initially ruled that Michigan's statutory sentencing scheme for first-degree murder could not constitutionally be applied to juvenile homicide offenders because it was “cruel and unusual” to impose a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile who was “capable of rehabilitation.” Davis was ultimately sentenced to 10 to 40 years in prison. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for resentencing pursuant to Michigan's statutory sentencing scheme, and at resentencing, the trial court imposed the required sentence of life without parole. The conviction and sentence became final for the purposes of direct appellate review in 2000. Unlike Carp and Davis, whose sentences became final for purposes of direct review before Miller was decided, at least 10 defendants were convicted and sentenced before Miller, but their cases were on direct appeal at the time Miller was decided. Dakotah Eliason was one of those defendants. At age 14, Eliason, without provocation and after hours of deliberation, fired a single deadly shot into the head of his stepgrandfather as he slept in his home. Eliason was charged with first-degree murder, convicted by a jury, and sentenced in October 2010 to life without parole. While Eliason's appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals, Miller was decided. In assessing the effect of Miller on Michigan's sentencing scheme for juvenile first-degree-murder offenders, the Court of Appeals held that a trial court must as a result of Miller perform an individualized sentencing analysis based upon the factors identified in the Miller case. Eliason appealed to the Supreme Court to challenge the sentencing procedures and options defined by the Court of Appeals, contending that the trial court should have the further option of imposing a sentence of a term of years. Eliason additionally argued that Const 1963, art 1, sec. 16 categorically barred the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile. After considering these matters, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the rule announced in Miller did not satisfy either the federal test for retroactivity set forth in "Teague v Lane," (489 US 288 (1989)), or Michigan's separate and independent test for retroactivity set forth in "Michigan v Sexton," (580 NW2d 404 (1998)), and "Michigan v Maxson," (759 NW2d 817 (2008)). Furthermore, the Court held that neither the Eighth Amendment nor Const 1963, art 1, section 16 categorically barred the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile homicide offender. View "Michigan v. Carp" on Justia Law

Matthew McKinley was convicted by a jury of larceny over $20,000, malicious destruction of property over $20,000, and inducing a minor to commit a felony in connection with a series of thefts of commercial air conditioning units. The trial court sentenced defendant, as a fourth-offense habitual offender, to concurrent terms of 12 to 25 years in prison on each count and reserved a decision regarding restitution. Following a hearing, and over defense counsel’s objection to the amount of restitution assessed, the court entered an amended judgment of sentence to reflect the imposition of $158,180.44 in restitution. The Court of Appeals vacated defendant’s conviction for larceny over $20,000, but otherwise affirmed his convictions and sentences in an unpublished opinion. The panel rejected defendant’s argument that Michigan’s restitution scheme was unconstitutional because it permitted trial courts to impose restitution on the basis of facts not proved to the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court limited to the issues on appeal to whether an order of restitution was equivalent to a criminal penalty and whether Michigan’s statutory restitution scheme was unconstitutional insofar as it permitted the trial court to order restitution based on conduct for which a defendant was not charged that had not been submitted to a jury or proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that a trial court’s restitution award that is based solely on conduct for which the defendant was not charged may not be sustained. View "Michigan v. McKinley" on Justia Law

This case began as a dispute between the parties regarding whether plaintiff owed tax under the now-repealed Single Business Tax Act (SBTA) related to plaintiff's contributions to its Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (VEBA) trust fund for 1997 through 2001. In this case, the issue for the Supreme Court to decide was what actions a taxpayer must take under MCL 205.30 of the Revenue Act to trigger the accrual of interest on a tax refund. The Court held that in order to trigger the accrual of interest, the plain language of the statute requires a taxpayer to: (1) pay the disputed tax; (2) make a “claim” or "petition" for a refund; and (3) "file" the claim or petition. "Although a "claim" or "petition" need not take any specific form, it must clearly demand, request, or assert a right to a refund of tax payments made to the Department of Treasury that the taxpayer asserts are not due. Additionally, in order to "file" the claim or petition, a taxpayer must submit the claim to the Treasury in a manner sufficient to provide the Treasury with adequate notice of the taxpayer’s claim." View "Ford Motor Co. v. Dept. of Treasury" on Justia Law