Eugene F. Black

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

taxesproperty

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.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

criminal law

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.

proceduretorts & liability

This case arose from an automobile accident personal injury suit in which the plaintiff sought to cross-examine the defendant driver about prior traffic convictions to challenge his credibility after the defendant denied any arrests or convictions. The trial court refused to allow the questioning on grounds that a minor violation like a prohibited left turn was not the type of crime bearing on credibility, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. On rehearing, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that GCR 1963, 607 permits no discretion by the trial judge to exclude cross-examination of a driver party concerning driving history when it tests credibility on the central issue of the case. The majority reasoned that prior case law and the court rule treated such evidence as admissible for impeachment without the balancing of undue prejudice previously applied under statute.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved the conviction of defendant Zimmerman and codefendant Mukalla for negligent homicide after Mukalla's car collided with Zimmerman's truck during a left turn on a Detroit street, killing a passenger in the car. The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed whether expert testimony from a non-eyewitness on the speed of the oncoming automobile was admissible at trial and whether the judge's exclusion of that opinion amounted to an abuse of discretion. The court affirmed the convictions, concluding that no reversible error occurred because the jury could determine the drivers' conduct and negligence from available eyewitness accounts and physical evidence. It reasoned that expert opinion testimony on matters like speed should be restricted to situations of true necessity, citing prior precedents that highlighted the limited reliability and potential dangers of such evidence when juries can decide without it.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a defendant's conviction for the rape of a middle-aged woman, where he argued on appeal that the testimony of a disinterested witness should be excluded as tainted fruit of an illegal interrogation under an extension of the exclusionary rules from United States v. Wade and Gilbert v. California. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the conviction by adopting the detailed opinion of the Court of Appeals. The court reasoned that the U.S. Supreme Court had not yet ruled that such witness testimony must be rejected in the absence of lineup or search issues, that the defendant conceded the existing precedents did not directly control, and that there was no reversible error given the strong evidence of guilt including scratches on the defendant noted by multiple witnesses.

criminal lawprocedure

This case, People v. Sims and the consolidated People v. Perry, reached the Michigan Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals had ruled against the defendants in their criminal appeals (reported at 23 Mich App 194). The defendants sought further review, but the Supreme Court considered the application and granted leave before ultimately deciding the matter. Justice Black concluded that the Court of Appeals opinion was correct in both reasoning and result, finding no reversible error, and voted for summary affirmance by adopting that opinion. Several other justices concurred in this result or in the judgment, leading the Court to affirm the lower court's decision.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a mortgage foreclosure action by plaintiff Abner A. Wolf, Inc. against defendants to recover on secured debts from merchandise sales, with defendants counterclaiming for damages based on fraud and contract breach and demanding a jury trial on all issues. The trial court allowed a single jury trial resulting in a general verdict of no cause of action on both the foreclosure claim and counterclaim, after which the plaintiff sought to set aside the verdict on the equitable foreclosure issues. The Michigan Supreme Court held that foreclosure actions are equitable in nature under Michigan law and thus for court determination rather than binding jury verdict, with no consent given for jury trial on those issues under court rules. The court remanded the case to the trial court to decide the foreclosure claim based on the existing record, while allowing the parties to seek further review if needed.

procedureproperty

This case concerned whether the Common Pleas Court for the City of Detroit has concurrent jurisdiction with the Recorder’s Court to conduct preliminary examinations in criminal cases arising in Detroit. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the Common Pleas Court lacked such jurisdiction. The decision relied on the unchanged statutory interpretation from People v. Ewald under the recorder’s court act, which assigns preliminary examinations in these matters exclusively to the Recorder’s Court. The court rejected arguments for a new construction based on legislative intent or practical concerns like court backlog.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the State Bar of Michigan's effort to enjoin the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen from running a plan under which the union advised injured members and their families to obtain legal advice before settling claims and recommended specific lawyers deemed competent for such work. Following U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia (1964) and United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Assn. (1967), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the plan was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments as an exercise of the members' rights to associate and obtain legal counsel. The court reasoned that the activities amounted to constitutionally safeguarded advice and recommendation rather than unauthorized practice of law or improper solicitation, and that lawyers participating in the plan enjoyed the same protection. The injunction entered by the trial court was therefore vacated.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rights

The case concerned whether a decedent's liability insurance policy qualified as an after-discovered asset under MCLA § 704.56, potentially allowing reopening of a closed estate to satisfy a negligence claim. The court held that it did not, affirming the lower court's ruling that the estate could not be reopened. The core reasoning was that the statute aims to prevent tardy claimants from disturbing finalized estate distributions after the three-month period, the plaintiff's counsel had actual knowledge of the facts in time to act before the August 1964 closing order but did not, and any liability remains personal to the decedent requiring timely claims against the fiduciary irrespective of insurance coverage.

proceduretorts & liability

In this Michigan negligence action, plaintiff Taylor sued defendant Walter for injuries sustained when struck by Walter's car while crossing a street, with the sole jury issue being whether Taylor was in a crosswalk. The trial court barred plaintiff's counsel from cross-examining Walter about a prior misdemeanor conviction for a prohibited left turn after Walter denied any arrests or convictions, ruling it was not a crime, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the misdemeanor qualified as a crime under state law and that prior convictions are admissible on cross-examination to impeach credibility. The majority reasoned that trial judges lack discretion to exclude such evidence based on perceived undue prejudice, as probative value is for the jury, and defendants may explain circumstances on redirect.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In Daraban v. Township of Redford, a landowner sued to invalidate a township zoning ordinance that classified his platted lots as R-1 single-family residential, seeking the right to build apartment dwellings instead. The township conceded that the R-1 classification was invalid as applied to the property. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment permanently enjoining the township from interfering with R-3 apartment construction on the lots. The majority reasoned that because no amendatory ordinance had been enacted and the township had not requested time to pursue one, the relief granted did not constitute improper judicial zoning. The decision upheld the plaintiff's right to use the property subject to other valid regulations.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a disbarment proceeding against an attorney under the State Bar of Michigan's disciplinary rules, specifically sections 9 and 29 of Rule 15, which require a respondent to appear, testify, and answer questions about alleged misconduct. The attorney objected on Fifth Amendment self-incrimination grounds but then proceeded to testify without further objection or any warning of consequences for refusal. The court accepted review solely to consider the impact of Spevack v. Klein (1967), which overruled Cohen v. Hurley (1961) and extended Fifth Amendment protections to such proceedings. Assuming Spevack applies retroactively, the court affirmed the disbarment on the ground that the attorney's privilege was not violated because he voluntarily testified after the initial objection and no coercive warning was given under the rule.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a plaintiff who sought to invalidate a release of tort liability signed after a 1964 personal injury incident, claiming mutual mistake about the extent of his head injuries so that he could proceed with a negligence damages action against the defendants. The court affirmed the trial court and Court of Appeals decisions denying equitable relief to set aside the release. The core reasoning was that although a mutual mistake existed regarding the injury, other factors distinguished the case from precedents like Hall v. Strom: liability was genuinely disputed rather than clear, the settlement payment was adequate rather than nominal, negotiations involved no haste or pressure, and the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing equity should intervene to eliminate the release as a defense.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a negligence action by plaintiff Gorman Moyses against primary defendant Spartan Asphalt Paving Co. stemming from a 1965 head-on collision in which Spartan's dump truck crossed the center line and struck Moyses' vehicle, with allegations of excessive speed, reckless operation, defective tires, inadequate brakes, and mechanical failure. Spartan, after impleading initial third-party tire sellers and manufacturers, moved under GCR 1963, 204.1 to add two more foreign and domestic Michelin entities as additional third-party defendants for contribution or indemnity based on a claimed defective tire. The trial court denied the motion for further impleader. The Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that impleader is discretionary rather than absolute, that the plaintiff's primary action had long been ready for trial without delay from third-party matters, and that any remaining third-party issues could be tried separately or as the trial judge deemed advisable under the court rules.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerned a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the personal representatives of two deceased parents against Franklin Fuel Company, seeking damages under Michigan's wrongful death statute. The Michigan Supreme Court used the case to reconsider its earlier precedent in Wycko v. Gnodtke on the proper measure of damages, focusing on the statute's requirement that recovery be limited to pecuniary injury to statutorily defined survivors plus medical, hospital, funeral expenses, and conscious pain and suffering. The court reviewed the statutory text directing that damages be distributed to the surviving spouse and next of kin in proportion to their losses, with the probate court handling allocation after certification of the judgment. It concluded by affirming the judgment in line with the statutory framework for pecuniary losses.

torts & liability