The case concerned a defendant convicted of unarmed robbery after a private citizen arrested him for a misdemeanor larceny, a police search uncovered a distinctive cigarette lighter linking him to a prior robbery, and a subsequent showup identification was used at trial. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The majority adopted the Court of Appeals' reasoning that routine observation of items removed from a prisoner's pockets during booking does not constitute a search requiring a warrant. The dissent contended that the citizen arrest for a misdemeanor was invalid under Michigan statutes, the resulting search was unlawful, the lighter was inadmissible, and the identification was fruit of the poisonous tree.
The case involved a challenge to property tax levies by Grosse Ile Township and related drainage and county entities, focusing on whether they exceeded the constitutional limits set by Article 9, Section 6 of the 1963 Michigan Constitution. That provision caps general ad valorem taxes at 15 mills (or up to 18 or 50 mills with voter approval) but carves out exceptions for taxes funding bond principal and interest or those imposed by charter cities, villages, or townships. The Michigan Supreme Court interpreted the text, constitutional convention records, and related statutes to determine the reach of these limits and exceptions, particularly regarding capital outlay, debt service, and voter referendum requirements. It held that the 15-mill cap does not restrict taxes for bond payments or certain charter-authorized levies, while affirming the need for electoral approval in other circumstances.
The case involved a motel guest who was injured when the rear legs of a provided chair collapsed during use, leading to a ruptured disc and spinal fusion surgery. Plaintiffs sued the motel operators on theories of negligence and breach of an implied warranty of fitness for the chair's intended use. The Michigan Supreme Court held that Michigan law should align with the common-law rule allowing recovery for breach of an implied warranty in bailment situations where the lessor provides a chattel for a known purpose and defects are not visible, reversing the lower courts' judgments that had rejected the warranty claim and remanding for trial on that theory. The core reasoning relied on precedents and annotations establishing that a bailor impliedly warrants reasonable suitability for the bailee's known intended use absent contrary agreement. Procedural disputes over appeal timeliness and law of the case were also addressed but did not alter the substantive ruling on the warranty issue.
The case involved a car accident at a traffic-light-controlled intersection where the plaintiff's husband, allegedly intoxicated and speeding, turned left into the path of the defendant driver, who was proceeding straight on a green light, resulting in injuries to the plaintiff passenger. She sued both the other driver and her husband, but the jury returned a verdict against her. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed that verdict, holding that any error by the trial judge in withholding the defendants' defense of the plaintiff's personal contributory negligence from the jury was harmless because it favored the defendants and the jury still ruled for them. The court further found sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by voluntarily riding with her intoxicated husband, and it identified no other errors that prejudiced her case.
The case involved a prosecution for statutory rape in which the sole issue was whether the trial court properly admitted testimony from the complainant about sexual intercourse with the defendant on occasions after the charged offense. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The court held that the evidence of subsequent acts was admissible under the criminal code provision (now MCLA 768.27) because it tended to prove the defendant's scheme, plan, or system in committing the offense, specifically by arranging a marriage with the underage complainant to improve the family's financial situation.
This case arose from a lawsuit by plaintiff Mary Zaitzeff against defendants for injuries sustained when she was bitten by their German shepherd while showing their home to prospective buyers, brought under Michigan's dog-bite statute and common-law negligence. After the jury retired to deliberate, the trial judge and court reporter entered the jury room to read back a portion of a witness's testimony concerning whether the plaintiff had been invited into the house, following on-the-record waivers by both attorneys of their presence at the verdict. The Michigan Supreme Court, in a divided opinion, reversed the no-cause verdict and the Court of Appeals affirmance, holding that a judge's entry into the jury room while deliberations are underway is inherently improper and requires a new trial irrespective of any demonstrated prejudice. The dissenting justices would have affirmed, concluding that the record showed no prejudice and that counsel's voluntary absence from the proceedings contributed to the informal procedure.
