Justia Michigan Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a dispute over the conditional rezoning of a property in Mayfield Township, Michigan. The property, owned by A2B Properties, LLC, had been the site of the Lapeer International Dragway since 1968. In 2018, A2B purchased the dragway, expanded the facilities, and increased its hours of operation. In 2021, A2B filed a conditional-rezoning agreement with the township, seeking to have the property rezoned from Residential Agricultural District (R-1) to General Commercial District (C-2), with limitations on when the dragway could operate. The township board approved the conditional-rezoning agreement and rezoned the property as requested. However, Ronald and Susan Jostock, who live near the dragway, filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief that the conditional rezoning was erroneous and injunctive relief to enjoin the conditional rezoning.In the lower courts, the Lapeer Circuit Court denied the defendants' motions for summary disposition and granted declaratory relief to the plaintiffs, noting that the rezoning was conditioned on A2B operating the dragway in a specified manner. However, because operation of a dragway is not a permitted use in the C-2 district, A2B had erroneously bound itself to perform conditions it could not lawfully perform in that district. On that basis, the trial court held that the conditional rezoning was invalid. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order, reasoning that the conditional-rezoning agreement was void because use as a dragway was not an approved use for that area under the township’s zoning ordinance.The Michigan Supreme Court held that a conditional rezoning is invalid under MCL 125.3405(1) if the proposed use is not a permitted use—either by right or after special approval—within the proposed zoning district. The court vacated the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether a dragway is a permitted use in the C-2 zoning district. View "Jostock v. Mayfield Township" on Justia Law

John M. Burkman and Jacob A. Wohl were charged with bribing or intimidating voters, conspiracy to bribe or intimidate voters, and two counts of using a computer to commit a crime. The charges stemmed from a robocall they designed and financed in 2020, which targeted voters in Michigan areas with significant Black populations. The robocall claimed that voting by mail would result in the voter’s personal information becoming part of a public database used by the police to track down old warrants, by credit card companies to collect debt, and potentially by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to track people for mandatory vaccines. The district court found probable cause to believe that the defendants had committed the charged offenses and bound them over for trial. The defendants moved to quash the bindovers, arguing that the robocall was not a “menace” or “other corrupt means or device” under the relevant statute and that the statute was unconstitutional. The circuit court denied the motions.The Michigan Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the defendants’ conduct fell within the term “menace” as used in the relevant statute. However, the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the defendants’ conduct fell within the statutory catchall term “other corrupt means or device.” The Supreme Court also held that the defendants’ conduct was not excluded from constitutional free-speech protections under the true-threat exception, but erred by holding that the defendants’ conduct was excluded from constitutional free-speech protections under the speech-integral-to-criminal-conduct exception. The Supreme Court adopted a limiting construction of the statute’s catchall provision and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. View "People v. Burkman" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over no-fault personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits. Charles Williamson was injured when he was hit by a car and applied for PIP benefits from the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF), which operates the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP). The MAIPF assigned Williamson’s claim to AAA, but AAA refused to pay. After Williamson's death, his daughters, Porsha Williamson and Lateshea Williamson, continued the lawsuit as co-personal representatives of his estate. The Estate claimed benefits for attendant care that was purported to have been provided after Charles Williamson’s death. AAA moved for summary disposition, arguing that the Estate knowingly presented material misrepresentations in support of its claim for no-fault benefits and was therefore barred from recovering all no-fault benefits.The trial court granted AAA’s motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The Court of Appeals held that statements made during discovery cannot constitute fraudulent insurance acts under the no-fault act. AAA then applied for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, held that false statements submitted during discovery, after a lawsuit for recovery has been filed, may be statements offered in support of a claim to the MAIPF or the assigned insurer. The court disagreed with the Court of Appeals' ruling that only prelitigation statements can constitute statements in support of a claim under MCL 500.3173a(4). The court concluded that the Estate’s interrogatory answers, which indicated that the Estate sought no-fault benefits for services rendered after Williamson passed away, were in support of a demand for coverage under the MACP based on bodily injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Estate Of Williamson v. AAA Of Michigan" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Andrew P. Sabatine (plaintiff) and Colleen K. Sabatine (defendant) over the modification of a temporary custody order. The couple had two children and lived together in Traverse City until September 2020 when the defendant moved with the children to Fenton. The defendant switched the children's primary-care doctors and school enrollments without the plaintiff's knowledge. In January 2021, the trial court granted the parties joint legal custody, with the defendant having primary physical custody and the plaintiff having parenting time every other weekend and two nonconsecutive weeks during the summer. The plaintiff sought to have the children returned to the Traverse City area.The trial court, after an evidentiary hearing, issued an order granting the parties joint legal custody, with the defendant having primary physical custody. The court determined that the children had established custodial environments with both parents and that the parenting-time order would not upset these environments. The court's decision was based on the circumstances that existed at the time of its decision. In March 2022, the trial court entered a judgment of divorce that incorporated this custody and parenting-time order. Both parties appealed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's analysis of the best-interest factors but reversed the trial court's holding that the custody order would not change the children's established custodial environments. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court to reassess its decision using the proper standard. The defendant sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court held that the question of whether a parenting-time provision modifies a child's established custodial environment should be answered based on the circumstances that exist at the time the trial court renders its custody decision. The court found that the Court of Appeals failed to give proper deference to the trial court's findings of fact and that the facts did not clearly preponderate against the trial court's factual findings that the parenting-time provision in the judgment of divorce did not alter the children's established custodial environments. The Supreme Court reversed part of the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Sabatine v. Sabatine" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over who should pay for the personal injury protection (PIP) benefits of Justin Childers, who was severely injured in a car accident. Initially, Childers' PIP benefits were covered by American Fellowship Mutual Insurance Company, but the company was declared insolvent in 2013. The Michigan Property and Casualty Guaranty Association (MPCGA) then assumed responsibility for Childers' PIP benefits. The MPCGA, after an investigation, concluded that Progressive Marathon Insurance Company was next in line to provide Childers' PIP benefits. However, Progressive denied Childers' claim.The trial court granted summary disposition to Progressive, ruling that while the actions were not time-barred, Progressive was not within statutory priority for Childers' benefits. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the one-year limitations period did not apply because the MPCGA is not generally subject to the no-fault act, and the MPCGA did not bring the action under the no-fault act. Instead, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the MPCGA’s right to proceed against Progressive came from the guaranty act, which allows the MPCGA to claim reimbursement from another insurer in the chain of designated priority insurers.The Michigan Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals. It held that the one-year limitations period in MCL 500.3145(1) applies where either an insured or the MPCGA brings an action for PIP benefits against a lower priority no-fault insurer after the higher priority insurer becomes insolvent. The court concluded that both the action brought by Childers' conservator and the MPCGA's action were time-barred. The court reversed part of the Court of Appeals' opinion, vacated the remainder, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Childers v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Jacob Marion, a minor, was struck and injured by a train operated by Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company while he was walking down the railroad tracks listening to music. The train's conductor and engineer saw Marion walking with his back to the train from a distance of about three-quarters of a mile. They sounded the train's horn when they were approximately 18 seconds away from Marion, but he did not respond. The emergency brake was applied only one second before the train struck Marion. Marion's guardian brought a negligence action against the railroad company and its employees. The defendants argued that the collision was not caused by their negligence but by Marion's failure to exercise ordinary care for his own safety.The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary disposition, noting that they had attempted to alert Marion of the train's approach and that Marion was old enough to understand the dangers of trains. The plaintiff appealed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that a train engineer has a duty to stop or slow down when a person in the train’s path fails to respond to a warning signal. The defendants then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court held that when a train operator sees a person on the tracks, there is a presumption that the person will move to a place of safety. However, when it becomes apparent that the person will not or cannot get out of the way, that presumption is overcome, and the train operator has a duty to take steps to avoid a collision. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants were negligent, and therefore, summary disposition was not warranted. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Marion V Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company" on Justia Law

In 2012, Ronald Scott was arrested and charged with various crimes. After a jury trial, he was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and acquitted of other charges. Before trial, the prosecution sought to admit certain other-acts evidence, which the trial court ruled inadmissible. The prosecution appealed this decision, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case. Scott's trial began while his application for leave to appeal was still pending, and the other-acts evidence was admitted at trial. Scott was convicted and sentenced, and he appealed his convictions and sentences.The Court of Appeals vacated Scott's convictions and sentences, ruling that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to conduct the trial under a precedent case, People v Washington. The Supreme Court later vacated this decision and remanded the case for reconsideration. On remand, the Court of Appeals held that resentencing a defendant whose application for leave was pending was not a structural error but a procedural error. The Court of Appeals then affirmed Scott's convictions but remanded the case for resentencing. Scott sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court held that a trial court's failure to adhere to court rules staying a proceeding while an interlocutory appeal is pending is a procedural error, and any such error can be remedied through subsequent appellate review after a final judgment is entered. Interlocutory appeals do not divest a trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction over a case. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to assess whether the prosecution presented evidence at Scott's trial that violated the rules of evidence and, if so, whether Scott is entitled to a new trial. View "People Of Michigan v. Scott" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Darren Findling, a professional guardian, and Auto-Owners Insurance Company. Findling was appointed as the guardian for two individuals, Mary Ann Malloy and Dana Jenkins, who were incapacitated due to automobile accidents. Findling, along with employees of his law firm, provided various guardianship services to Malloy and Jenkins, and sought reimbursement from Auto-Owners for these services under the no-fault act. Auto-Owners declined to reimburse for the services performed by the employees of Findling’s law firm, arguing that the services were not lawfully rendered.The Oakland County Probate Court granted Findling’s motions for partial summary disposition, ruling in favor of Findling. Auto-Owners appealed, but the Court of Appeals initially denied the appeal. The Supreme Court then remanded the cases to the Court of Appeals for consideration. On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that a guardian is only required to comply with certain statutory provisions to lawfully delegate guardianship powers, but not duties, to employees.The Supreme Court of Michigan, in a unanimous opinion, held that a professional guardian cannot, without executing a power of attorney complying with certain statutory provisions, lawfully delegate to employees their final decision-making authority over a guardianship “power” that is explicitly listed in the statute or over any guardianship task that alters or impairs the incapacitated individual’s rights, duties, liabilities, or legal relations. However, a professional guardian may lawfully have employees assist in exercising a guardianship power and may have employees perform any other guardianship task on behalf of the professional guardian. The Supreme Court vacated the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the cases for further proceedings. View "In Re Guardianship Of Mary Ann Malloy" on Justia Law

Two employees, Richard Miller and Brent Whitman, filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), alleging they were terminated in retaliation for their close friendship with Cedric Griffey, a deputy warden who was targeted by the MDOC after his wife, Lisa Griffey, filed a complaint and lawsuit against the MDOC for racial harassment. The plaintiffs claimed their termination was a violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA).The Genesee Circuit Court denied the MDOC's motion for summary disposition, which argued that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim under the ELCRA because they had not personally engaged in any protected conduct. The MDOC appealed this decision, and the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling, concluding that the ELCRA did not authorize the plaintiffs' claims.The Michigan Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the ELCRA does provide a cause of action for associational or "third party" retaliation claims. The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged such a claim, stating that they had a close relationship with Cedric Griffey and that the MDOC took adverse action against them in response to Griffey's protected acts. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' firings were part of the effort to retaliate against Griffey, and thus, they had stated a cause of action under the ELCRA. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Miller v. Michigan Department Of Corrections" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Long Lake Township and Todd and Heather Maxon. The township alleged that the Maxons were storing junk cars on their property, violating a zoning ordinance, a nuisance law, and a 2008 settlement agreement. As the property was not visible from the street, the township hired a drone operator to take aerial photographs and video of the property without the Maxons' permission or a warrant. The Maxons moved to suppress the aerial photographs and all other evidence obtained by the township from the drone, asserting that the search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment.The Grand Traverse Circuit Court denied the Maxons’ motion, reasoning that the drone surveillance did not constitute a search. The Court of Appeals, in a split decision, reversed the lower court's ruling, holding that the drone surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment. The township appealed to the Supreme Court, which ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding whether the exclusionary rule applied to the facts of this case. The Supreme Court then vacated its earlier order and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of whether the exclusionary rule applied. On remand, the Court of Appeals, in a split decision, held that the exclusionary rule did not apply and that the photographs and video could not be suppressed regardless of whether the township unreasonably searched the Maxons’ property.The Michigan Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, held that the exclusionary rule may not be applied to civil enforcement proceedings that effectuate local zoning and nuisance ordinances and seek only prospective, injunctive relief. The court found that the costs of excluding the drone evidence outweighed the benefits of suppressing it, and the exclusionary rule therefore did not apply. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Long Lake Township v. Maxon" on Justia Law