Thomas E. Brennan

This case concerned an action by Bertil Fornell to set aside a 1966 consent judgment that declared him a spendthrift under Michigan law and appointed a bank as trustee over all his assets, along with later amendments to that judgment. The judgment arose from litigation involving corporate shares, family members, and a probate contest, and it was entered without a hearing on the spendthrift allegation but with consent of all parties; it was then amended by consent in 1968 to tie into a divorce decree dividing income and assets, and further modified in 1969. The court examined the sequence of stipulations, consents, and court orders, ultimately entering an order that ratified most terms of the declaratory judgment, adjusted certain provisions on trust duration and distributions, and directed the trustee to handle specific payments and accountings while confirming the trust's continuation until Bertil's death or July 1, 1974.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In People v. Wilson, the defendant was convicted by a jury of attempted breaking and entering. After about 90 minutes of deliberation, the jury reported being unable to reach a verdict; the trial judge asked for their numerical division, learned it was 11 to 1, and remarked that the split was 'not very far from a verdict' before sending them back for further deliberations. The defendant appealed, arguing that the inquiry into the jury's numerical division was improper. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the conviction, adopting the rule from Brasfield v. United States that such an inquiry tends to be coercive. The court reasoned that the judge's comment implied only one additional juror needed to be persuaded, which improperly pressured the holdout juror while reinforcing the majority's position and suggested that numerical closeness equated to progress toward agreement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal by attorney William H. Van Duzer from a 100-day suspension ordered by the State Bar Grievance Board arising from his acquisition of title to a client's apartment complex property to prevent foreclosure, along with related agreements allowing the client an opportunity to reacquire it. The court determined that Van Duzer and his law partners held the property as mortgagees in possession rather than as owners, owing fiduciary duties to account for all funds received and expended and to reconvey title upon repayment of advances plus interest. The court remanded the matter to the Grievance Board with instructions that the complaint be dismissed upon submission of satisfactory evidence that Van Duzer had provided a full accounting to the client, while assessing costs against the appellant.

criminal lawproperty

This case concerns the proper scope of judicial review for decisions by a township zoning board of appeals under Michigan law. The Michigan Supreme Court held that, unlike city zoning boards whose final decisions receive limited review via superintending control, township zoning board decisions are expressly not final under the statute and must be reviewed by the circuit court on both questions of law and fact. The circuit judge had applied an incorrect standard of review drawn from city zoning cases, which improperly limited the court to questions of law and deferred to the board's discretion. The court therefore remanded the case to the circuit court for a trial de novo on the merits.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of assault with intent to commit rape and felonious assault after raising an insanity defense at trial. The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to address conflicting Court of Appeals decisions on the propriety of prosecutorial comments to the jury about the consequences of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, including suggestions that the defendant could easily obtain release via habeas corpus. Building on its prior decision in People v. Cole, which adopted the Lyles rule requiring jury instructions that an NGRI verdict leads to commitment rather than freedom, the court examined the balance between informing jurors to avoid imprisoning those needing hospitalization and preventing verdicts based on sympathy or speculation about dispositions. The opinion emphasized the general prohibition on addressing sentencing or post-verdict outcomes but recognized limited exceptions where insanity is at issue, while cautioning against comments that might improperly influence the jury toward or away from an NGRI finding.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved residents of University of Michigan-owned family apartments who filed a class action challenging a $6 monthly rent increase that the university planned to use to compensate the Ann Arbor public schools for educating their children. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin collection of the increase and obtain refunds, arguing it amounted to an illegal tax or payment. The Court of Claims granted summary judgment to the university, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed that result. The court treated the matter as a straightforward landlord-tenant contract dispute and held that the lease terms allowed the university to raise rents with 60 days' notice without any limit on the purpose or use of the funds, so tenants had no contractual right to challenge how the increased rents would be spent.

propertybusiness & regulatorytaxes

The case involves a petition for a writ of superintending control in the nature of mandamus to compel the Michigan State Board of Law Examiners to certify Terrance P. Houlahan for admission to the practice of law. Houlahan, a Canadian citizen lawfully admitted as a permanent resident alien, had completed his legal education in the United States, passed the Michigan bar examination, and satisfied all other requirements except the statutory mandate that applicants be United States citizens. The court noted that the United States Supreme Court in In re Griffiths had held that a similar citizenship requirement in Connecticut violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Applying that precedent, the Michigan Supreme Court determined that the citizenship condition could not be enforced, and it directed that the petitioner be admitted to the bar upon proper motion.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

The case involved two actions seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to assess the validity of Michigan criminal and regulatory statutes on abortion and medical practice following the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. The Michigan Supreme Court examined MCLA 750.14 (criminal miscarriage, addressed in a companion case), MCLA 750.15 (advertising or sale of abortifacients), MCLA 750.322 (assaultive abortion), MCLA 750.323 (manslaughter by abortion), and MCLA 338.53 (unlawful medical conduct involving criminal abortions). The court concluded that MCLA 750.15 is constitutional because it regulates such sales as a medical activity consistent with Roe; MCLA 750.322 is valid when limited to felonious assaults resulting in the death of a quick child; MCLA 750.323 and the relevant portion of MCLA 338.53 are not unconstitutional; and no injunction was issued. The reasoning focused on interpreting the statutes to avoid conflict with federal due process requirements while upholding state regulatory authority where no direct inconsistency existed.

abortioncriminal law

This case involved a condemnation action by Delta Township to acquire a 50-foot easement across private land owned by the Eyde defendants for constructing the Carrier Creek Interceptor Extension sewer line serving a state office complex and future township development. A jury found the taking necessary and awarded $6,000 in compensation, which the circuit court confirmed in a judgment that included the easement description plus 'sufficient area for construction.' On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the proceedings and proofs at trial established only the specific 50-foot easement route, with no evidence or compensation for additional temporary construction areas, and that condemnation of a defined easement does not automatically include rights to use extra land. The court therefore affirmed the verdict amount but remanded to amend the judgment by deleting the phrase 'and sufficient area for construction' from the description of the property taken.

propertyprocedure

The case concerns whether West Shore Community College, a community college district spanning Manistee and Mason Counties, could require county officials to levy an additional 0.3 mill in ad valorem property taxes to cover debt service on $2.25 million in bonds issued without voter approval under the Community College Act of 1966. The college sought a declaratory judgment and injunction after the counties declined to spread the tax, arguing that constitutional and statutory authority permitted unlimited levies for debt service without further voter authorization. The circuit court denied relief, and the Michigan Supreme Court remanded for a new trial, holding that the college must demonstrate the levy is imposed for debt service while placing the burden on defendants to prove it is not, and noting the matter may be better addressed legislatively.

taxesproperty

The case concerned an employee who sued his union and its secretary after being discharged from his position at the YWCA, alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to pursue his grievance under the collective bargaining agreement's arbitration process. The plaintiff had settled separately with his employer, and a jury awarded him damages against the union defendants. The trial court upheld the verdict, but the Court of Appeals reversed on grounds of insufficient evidence. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial judgment, reasoning that the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, supported findings that the union ignored the grievance or processed it in a perfunctory manner without attempting settlement, and that exhaustion of additional intra-union remedies was not required.

labor & employment

The case concerned whether Hazel Shaw, a licensed nurse and holder of a teaching certificate employed by Macomb Community College as Co-Ordinator of Nursing under successive probationary contracts, could claim protections under the Michigan Teachers’ Tenure Act after her contract was not renewed. Shaw sued the college board for breach of contract, asserting rights to job security and due process under the Act. The trial court granted summary judgment striking the Tenure Act claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that the Act does not apply to community colleges. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding based on the Act’s language, legislative history, and administrative regulations that it covers only public schools operated by school districts and that community colleges have no certification process under the statute.

labor & employment

This case involved the admissibility of evidence during an armed robbery trial in which the defendant raised an alibi defense. The prosecution sought to impeach an alibi witness by having a detective read aloud an unsigned written memorandum purporting to record the witness's prior inconsistent statement. The trial court overruled a hearsay objection and permitted the reading of the memorandum to the jury. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled the memorandum inadmissible because it was an out-of-court statement prepared by the detective, not signed by the witness, and offered to prove the truth of its contents without satisfying the requirements for present recollection refreshed or other proper foundations. The conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved property owners in Southfield seeking a declaratory judgment to invalidate a special assessment for sewer construction, claiming they were denied a veto right under city ordinance and a hearing on the improvement's necessity before the city council, and that the procedure violated equal protection if no hearing was required. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the city, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there is no constitutional right to a hearing on the necessity of a public sewer, that state statutes place decision-making authority with the city's governing body when contracting with the county for construction, and that the statutes provide valid alternate financing methods without creating arbitrary classifications that violate equal protection.

propertyprocedurecivil rights

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit filed by plaintiff Connelly against several defendants after she was injured by a malfunctioning industrial press on May 12, 1965; the press had been overhauled and returned to her employer by March 15, 1965. The defendants sought accelerated judgment, arguing that the three-year statute of limitations under Michigan's Revised Judicature Act had expired because the alleged negligent acts occurred more than three years before the suit was filed on May 10, 1968. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the motions for accelerated judgment should be denied. The core reasoning was that under the statute, a claim accrues when the wrong is done, but an actionable wrong in a personal injury case requires all four elements—including damages—to be present; thus the limitations period begins only when the injury occurs, not earlier when the negligent repair took place.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an action for specific performance of a 1965 real estate purchase agreement in which plaintiffs agreed to buy defendants' home in Pontiac, Michigan, on FHA mortgage terms for $11,500, with an $800 deposit paid to the broker. After defendants failed to attend the scheduled closing, the parties reached a December 1966 court stipulation and consent judgment requiring defendants to convey the property by January 30, 1967, deliver possession by March 1, 1967, and split certain costs, with the trial court retaining jurisdiction. Years of further litigation and appeals followed without the sale being completed. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, reasoning that plaintiffs had failed for years to perfect the rights obtained under the stipulation and judgment, and that specific performance is a discretionary remedy not to be granted where doing so would be unjust or inequitable under the circumstances.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a defendant's conviction for possession of marijuana, which was based on evidence obtained during a search of his home on April 18, 1969. The appeal raised questions about the forcible entry into the home and the proper execution of the search warrant. Relying on its recent decision in People v. Sinclair, the Michigan Supreme Court determined that these issues were moot. As a result, the court reversed the conviction and remanded the case to the Wayne County Circuit Court with instructions to enter an order releasing the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge to the State Bar Grievance Board's dismissal of a request for investigation into alleged attorney misconduct without convening a public hearing. The court held that such challenges should be brought as original petitions for a writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court rather than as appeals, and it remanded this matter for further confidential investigation by the Grievance Administrator. The reasoning centered on the procedural rules (Rules 15.6, 15.7, and 15.8) that preserve confidentiality of investigations until reasonable cause for misconduct is found or the respondent attorney requests public proceedings, while allowing the Court to review for abuse of discretion or inadequate investigation without initially disclosing the attorney's identity.

procedure

The case concerned a landowner who began industrial activities including installing punch presses and constructing a building on his property in 1950, prior to its rezoning to residential use in 1952, and who later faced city action declaring the property a nuisance and ordering removal of outside storage. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the city could require removal of junk but permitted certain equipment to remain. The core reasoning was that a prior nonconforming use is a vested right that zoning cannot eliminate without proof of abandonment, which requires both nonuse and intent to abandon rather than mere sporadic activity; the court found insufficient evidence of abandonment here but upheld the limited injunction because the city did not challenge its scope on appeal, while also adopting a rule that one year of nonuse serves as prima facie evidence of abandonment going forward.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the convictions of defendant Bercheny and five others for possession of heroin, conspiracy to possess heroin, and control of heroin. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the convictions by adopting the Court of Appeals' detailed opinion, finding no clear error in the lower court's handling of the issues raised and no conflict with other precedents that would warrant further review. The majority distinguished the facts from a cited Missouri marijuana case involving containers and a cluttered table, noting instead open piles of heroin and different circumstances regarding the defendant's presence. A dissent argued that the heroin possession statute should be held unconstitutional, consistent with the court's prior ruling on marijuana possession.

criminal law