Justia Michigan Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment's requirement that a warrant be obtained before entering a residence applied to a first-responder answering a 911 call. Defendant Mark Slaughter resided in a townhouse. His neighbor saw water running down her basement wall and over her electrical box. After a few failed attempts to reach Defendant, the neighbor called 911. The city dispatched several firefighters to the townhouse. After consulting with the neighbor, the firefighters entered Defendant's residence. When the firefighter went to the basement to shut off the water, he observed in plain view, grow lights and several dozen marijuana plants. The firefighter reported what he saw to the local police. Defendant was charged with manufacturing with the intent to deliver the marijuana. He filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence of the plants, grow lights, and everything else police officers confiscated, arguing that the firefighter's entry into his townhouse violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The circuit court granted the motion, holding that the firefighter did not attempt to verify the existence of running water in the wall prior to entering Defendant's home. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision, the majority holding that a "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment could apply to searches by firefighters only when they were investigating a possible fire hazard. Upon review, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts' decisions, holding that the community caretaking exception applies to firefighters "no less than to police officers" when they are responding to emergencies that threaten life or property. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the firefighter's actions in this case were reasonable, thus satisfying the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. The Court remanded the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Michigan v. Slaughter" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded that Defendants Richco Construction, Inc. (Richco) and Ronald Richards, Jr. were personally notified of the default judgment against them and denied their motion to set aside that judgment. The suit arose from a contractual relationship between Plaintiff Lawrence M. Clarke, Inc. (Clarke) and Defendant. Clarke worked on a residential subdivision in 2003, and hired Richco as a subcontractor to work on the sewer system. Richco's work did not satisfy the local governing municipality, and after efforts to repair were unfruitful, Clarke contracted with another party to finish the work. Clark filed a breach of contract and fraud complaint against Richco. The process server attempted to serve Richco at its business address on file with the state, but Richco had vacated the premises and left no forwarding address. Clarke continued in its efforts to locate Richco and refiled its complaint. The trial court permitted alternative service through mailing notice to last-known addresses and a classified advertisement in the local paper. With no response, Clarke moved for a default judgment that the court granted. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that Richco was personally notified, and that Richco was entitled to relief from the default judgment. The Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Lawrence M. Clarke, Inc. v. Richco Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

The Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCFA) prohibits a "public body" from using public resources to make a "contribution or expenditure" for political purposes. At issue in this case what whether a public school district's administration of a payroll deduction plan that collects and remits political contributions from its employees to the Michigan Education Association's political action committee violates the MCFA. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that through the administration of a payroll deduction plan that remits funds to a partisan political action committee, a school district makes both a "contribution" and “expenditure" under the terms of the MCFA. View "Michigan Edu. Ass'n v. Michigan Sec'y of State" on Justia Law

In 2005, Defendant Kent Lee and his wife babysat their neighbor's two boys. Defendant prepared the children for bedtime by bathing them. The younger boy, a three-year-old, was uncooperative when Defendant tried to diaper and dress him. According to Defendant, he used his finger to "flick" the child's penis in an effort to get his attention. When the child did not respond, Defendant flicked him again. The child cried after the second flick. Defendant was subsequently charged with second-degree criminal sexual conduct and second-degree child abuse. At his sentencing hearing, the prosecution requested that Defendant be required to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender’s Registration Act's (SORA) catch-all provision. The judge did not require the registration, finding that the crime was not a "sex act." Approximately twenty months after the sentencing, the prosecution moved for an entry of order requiring Defendant to register under SORA. Defendant objected, but the trial court reversed itself, and required the registration. Defendant appealed. The appellate court affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred when it required Defendant to register 20 months after he was sentenced. The Court reversed the appellate court and vacated the trial court's decisions. View "Michigan v. Lee" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant-Appellant Drew Peltola on drug possession charges. The trial court considered Defendant's prior criminal history ("prior record variables" or PRVs), and calculated his sentence to be in the five to twenty-three month range, with a statutory minimum at twenty years. Because defendant had a prior conviction for a controlled substance, the trial court applied a sentence enhancement. As a result, the court doubled both the minimum and maximum sentences for each conviction and sentenced defendant within the enhanced guidelines range to concurrent terms of 4 to 40 years' imprisonment. Defendant unsuccessfully appealed the trial court's scoring of his PRVs. The question before the Supreme Court involved whether the trial court miscalculated Defendant's sentence based on its scoring of the PRVs. Upon consideration of the trial record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found that the trial court's enhancing of Defendant's sentence range was authorized by Michigan law. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision and Defendant's sentence. View "Michigan v. Peltola" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Richard Loweke was an employee of an electrical subcontractor. Defendant Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Company was also a subcontractor. Both parties were hired for work on a construction project at the Detroit Metro Airport. Plaintiff was injured at the site when several cement boards fell on him. Defendant's employees placed the boards against the wall. Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligence. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it owed Plaintiff no duty that was "separate and distinct" from the contractual duties it owed to the general contractor. The trial court granted Defendant's motion, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Plaintiff argued that Defendant had a common-law duty to avoid physical harm to others from its own actions. Upon consideration of the parties' briefs and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions. The Court found that the trial and appeals courts misinterpreted Michigan law with respect to "duty." The Court held that the assumption of contractual obligations does not limit the common law tort duties owed to others in the performance of the contract. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition, Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The dispute in this case stemmed from a disagreement between Plaintiff Florence Beach and Defendant Lima Township over property rights to an area of land that were shown as streets on the recorded township plat. The land was originally recorded in 1835, and through a series of conveyances, was acquired and held by the Beach family ever since. In 2004, the Township purchased several blocks to build a fire department substation and intended to use the platted streets. Plaintiff disputed the Township's right to use the streets and filed an action to quiet title to them based on adverse possession. The circuit court denied the Township's motion after an evidentiary hearing. The court found that 100-year-old trees were growing in the middle of the "streets," and that the Beach family had adversely possessed them by farming as well as maintaining private trials and fences. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Township argued that Plaintiff was required to file a claim under the state Land Division Act (LDA) instead of bringing a quiet title action when the property in dispute is on a recorded plat. The Court found that the LDA only applied to cases when a party's interest arose from the platting process. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's findings that Plaintiff had adversely possessed the platted streets. View "Beach v. Township of Lima" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court consolidated nine separate cases for review. In each, Plaintiffs own property that was subject to state property taxes. Each Plaintiff described the property as âmachinery and equipment.â For the 2008 tax year, the local assessors classified the property for tax-assessment purposes as âindustrial real propertyâ or âcommercial personal property.â Plaintiffs petitioned the relevant boards-of-review to reclassify the property as âindustrial personal property.â That reclassification would permit them to take advantage of recently enacted tax exemptions or credits. In each case, the board denied the request. Plaintiffs then petitioned the State Tax Commission (STC) to reclassify the property. In each case, the STC denied the requests. Plaintiffs then sought and obtained relief in various state circuit courts. The STC appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the court reversed each of the circuit court judgments. The appellate court held that state law barred an appeal of the STC classifications to any state court. Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, to ask whether the circuit courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals of STC classification decisions. The Supreme Court found the state legislature has not provided for other means for judicial review of STC classification decisions. Accordingly, the Court held that the circuit courts do have jurisdiction over appeals from the STC.

Former Governor Jennifer Granholm appointed Defendant Judge Hugh Clarke to the district court. The Attorney General claimed that Defendant was not entitled to hold office beyond January 1, 2011, and brought a quo warranto action to oust him. The Supreme Court found that Defendant is entitled under state law to hold the office of district judge until January 1, 2013. The Court dismissed the Attorney Generalâs quo warranto action.

This appeal challenged the small employer group health coverage act (Act), which establishes requirements for insurance carriers to offer health insurance benefit plans to small employers in Michigan. Priority Health sought a declaratory judgment from the Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) so that it could allocate a small portion of insurance premiumsâ costs to employers, lessening the financial burden on employees. Priority Health would not renew contracts with employers who did not agree to pay a portion of the premiums. Both the Court of Appeals and the Commissioner of the Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) concluded that âminimum employer contribution provisionsâ are inconsistent with the Act. They reasoned that an employerâs failure to pay a minimum percentage of its employeesâ premiums is not among the reasons in the Act that a carrier can use to refuse to renew an insurance plan. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court and OFISâ interpretation of the Act. The Court found that just because the Michigan Legislature did not include an employerâs refusal to pay according to a minimum contribution provision as among the reasons for not renewing a contract for benefits, the [Priority Health] provision was unreasonable or inconsistent with the Act. In general, âunless a provision directly conflicts with the enumerated reasons [of the Act], it may be included in a plan so long as it is reasonable and not inconsistent.â The Court remanded the case to the OFIS for further proceedings.