James H. Brickley

The case involved two defendants who, in 1983, were convicted of armed robbery, assault with intent to commit murder, and felony-firearm after shooting a robbery victim, who survived at the time. More than four years later, after the victim died from complications of the gunshot wounds, the defendants were tried and convicted of felony murder and felony-firearm. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the subsequent prosecutions did not violate double jeopardy under the U.S. or Michigan constitutions, as the victim's later death created a distinct offense not previously prosecuted. However, the court determined that the defendants' prior convictions for armed robbery and assault with intent to murder must be vacated to prevent multiple punishments for the same conduct, with time served credited toward the felony murder sentences.

criminal law

In Gray v. Morley, an employee sued his employer after suffering serious injuries when thrown from the back of a pickup truck during a work-related drive, claiming the employer's erratic driving amounted to an intentional tort outside the workers' compensation system. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed summary disposition for the employer, holding that the claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act. The court reasoned that the statute permits an intentional tort exception only when the employer commits a deliberate act with the specific intent to injure the employee, a standard not met by evidence of prior reckless or game-like driving that did not establish certainty of injury or deliberate targeting in this instance.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerned whether evidence seized during a search of the defendant's home pursuant to a valid warrant should be suppressed due to police officers' violation of the knock-and-announce statute and Fourth Amendment requirements by waiting only eleven seconds before forcing entry. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule because the items would have been found regardless of the premature entry and suppressing them would improperly disadvantage the prosecution. The court further concluded that the state knock-and-announce statute does not reflect legislative intent to require exclusion of evidence for its violation. It therefore reversed the trial court's suppression order and the Court of Appeals affirmance.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Mary Glover, who was serving parolable life sentences for second-degree murder and assault after a 1976 gas station robbery that resulted in one death. Glover challenged the parole board's denial of parole after a public hearing, arguing that the board failed to provide an adequate written explanation, violated the Open Meetings Act by deciding in private, and that statutory changes to parole review intervals were unconstitutional. The Michigan Supreme Court held that there was no federal or state due process right to a written explanation and that the Open Meetings Act did not apply to the parole board. However, the court affirmed a remand to the board for a more detailed explanation under MCL 791.235(12), reasoning that the statute requires sufficient detail to allow meaningful judicial review of the board's discretionary decision, even without a constitutional mandate.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned whether the Michigan Supreme Court's prior decision in Profit v. Citizens Ins. Co. of America, requiring offset of social security disability benefits against no-fault work-loss benefits under MCL 500.3109(1), applies retroactively to allow insurers to recover overpayments made before that ruling. The court held that Profit applies retroactively, that insurers possess an equitable common-law right to reimbursement for such overpayments, but only when reimbursement would be fair in light of all circumstances, and that the doctrine of laches does not bar recovery here. This rested on earlier precedents interpreting the offset statute, principles of restitution, and the absence of sufficient detrimental reliance by the defendants.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The consolidated cases Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital and Gregory v. Heritage Hospital arose from medical malpractice and related claims in which plaintiffs sought discovery of third-party patient identities and hospital records to support allegations of negligent treatment and inadequate supervision. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the statutory physician-patient privilege under M.C.L. § 600.2157 protects the names of unknown patients from disclosure by hospitals, even in discovery, and that hospitals have a corresponding duty of nondisclosure. It affirmed the Court of Appeals reversal of the order compelling disclosure in Dorris. In Gregory, the Court partially reversed the trial court's discovery and summary disposition rulings, holding that certain investigative materials were not protected but that the plaintiff was required to comply with notice-of-intent and affidavit-of-merit requirements for the malpractice claim, and remanded for further proceedings.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case involved the Family Independence Agency's petition to terminate the parental rights of James Sours and Zellma DeCaire over their six children, based on allegations of physical abuse by Sours, DeCaire's failure to protect the children, and the parents' noncompliance with court-ordered services such as counseling, parenting classes, and maintaining contact with the agency after the children were placed in foster care. The probate court terminated the parental rights, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the termination order, holding that the petitioner had established at least one statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The core reasoning focused on the parents' history of domestic violence, neglect, and repeated failures to comply with the probate court's directives regarding the children's welfare.

family law

The case concerned whether a custodial mother of two children, whose only income was means-tested public assistance benefits like AFDC, could be treated as voluntarily unemployed so that income could be imputed to her when calculating her child support obligation for a third, noncustodial child. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the matter, holding that the trial court had not followed the required procedures under the Michigan Child Support Formula Manual and prior precedent. The Manual bars imputing means-tested public assistance as income and permits deviation from the formula only if the court explains in writing or on the record why the formula would be unjust or inappropriate. The Court further required that any decision to impute income must include an evaluation of specific equitable factors regarding the parent's actual ability and likelihood of earning that income, which the trial court had not done.

family law

This case involved a volunteer firefighter and EMT who was injured while attempting to extricate an unlicensed minor driver from a vehicle collision and sued the driver and vehicle owner for negligence and negligent entrustment. The trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the suit under the firefighter’s rule from Kreski v. Modern Wholesale Electric Supply Co., which bars recovery for injuries to safety officers responding to emergencies caused by others’ negligence. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the rule does not extend to unpaid volunteers because its public policy rationale—based on the unique relationship where the public hires, trains, and compensates professional officers to handle risks—is inapplicable to volunteers who receive no pay, pension, or benefits and have no statutory duty to respond. The court emphasized that receipt of workers’ compensation is not dispositive and that the rescue doctrine generally permits recovery by foreseeable volunteer rescuers.

torts & liability

This case involved a claim under Michigan's Handicappers' Civil Rights Act by a general laborer who was discharged after losing an eye in a non-work accident and who sought back and front pay for alleged discriminatory discharge. The trial court found the employer liable and awarded damages after determining that the employee had reasonably mitigated his losses through job searches and lower-paying positions. The Court of Appeals reduced the award, holding that back pay should end when the employee took a seasonal job and that front pay was unavailable due to an unreasonably refused job offer. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed in relevant part, ruling that the employee's mitigation efforts were reasonable under the circumstances, including his limited education and resources, and that front pay remained available where reinstatement was impracticable. The core reasoning focused on the fact-specific nature of the mitigation duty and the trial court's discretion to evaluate the genuineness of the employer's recall offer and the employee's ongoing search efforts.

civil rightslabor & employment

In People v. Crawford, the defendant was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver 50 to 225 grams of cocaine after police discovered the drugs in his vehicle during a traffic stop and subsequent search. Prior to trial, the prosecution introduced evidence of the defendant's 1988 conviction for a similar drug offense to prove knowledge and intent under Michigan Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the prior conviction evidence was improperly admitted because it constituted impermissible character or propensity evidence rather than a proper non-propensity purpose. The court reasoned that the evidence's probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, despite the use of limiting instructions, and that the error required reversal under the applicable standards for evidentiary mistakes in criminal cases.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns whether the assault element of assault with intent to rob while unarmed requires proof that the defendant had the actual ability to carry out a threatened battery. Defendant Fred Reeves was convicted after approaching a beer delivery driver with his hand in a bag and threatening him in a manner that caused the victim reasonable fear for his life, though no weapon was recovered. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, interpreting precedent to require evidence of present ability to inflict harm. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that an undisclosed inability to do harm does not preclude conviction under the offense as long as the victim's apprehension of imminent injury was reasonable. The court reasoned from the common-law definition of assault, which includes an unlawful act placing another in reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery.

criminal law

This case involved a hospital suing a widow to recover her deceased husband's unpaid medical bills of over $22,000 under the common-law doctrine of necessaries, which had traditionally made one spouse liable for the other's essential expenses. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held that the Married Women's Property Act constitutionally shields a wife's separate property from her husband's debts absent her express agreement to pay. The court reasoned that the doctrine's historical application only to husbands violated equal protection under the state and federal constitutions, leading it to abrogate the doctrine entirely so neither spouse bears liability for the other's necessaries without agreement. The case was remanded for judgment in the defendant's favor.

family lawpropertycivil rights

In these consolidated Michigan criminal cases, the prosecution called witnesses (including a co-defendant's brother and an incarcerated associate) whom it knew would invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in the jury's presence, leading to convictions for second-degree murder and felony firearm possession in one case and a reversal in the other. The Michigan Supreme Court held that this practice did not violate the defendants' constitutional rights but constituted evidentiary error under state rules. The Court further ruled that the error was harmless because, given the strength and weight of the remaining untainted evidence, it was highly probable the improper witness testimony did not affect the verdicts. The decision clarified the standard for reviewing preserved nonconstitutional evidentiary errors in Michigan courts.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved residents near a construction site in Manistee, Michigan, who sued developers and the city after a storm caused significant sediment from stripped dunes to damage their properties during marina and condominium development. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' violations of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act (SESCA) established a prima facie case under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) for polluting or impairing natural resources. The Michigan Supreme Court held that SESCA violations can serve as evidence supporting a MEPA claim and therefore reversed the Court of Appeals in part to reinstate the trial court's preliminary injunction and related findings. The Court also ruled that MEPA does not authorize trial judges to apportion attorney fees based on the interests of justice and affirmed the Court of Appeals on that issue.

environment

The case involved a medical malpractice claim brought by the estate of Janet Vargo against Dr. Harold Sauer and others following her death after giving birth at a private hospital. Dr. Sauer, an MSU professor who provided on-call services there, moved for summary disposition claiming governmental immunity as a state employee under Michigan's tort immunity statute. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the hospital exception did not govern the case and that a factual issue existed as to whether Dr. Sauer was acting solely for MSU or simultaneously as an agent of the hospital, making dismissal premature. The court therefore reversed the grant of summary disposition and remanded for further proceedings limited to the malpractice claim arising from Dr. Sauer's relationship with the hospital.

torts & liability

The case involved two disputes over whether the Oakland County Road Commission and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources could recover from the Michigan Property and Casualty Guaranty Association for obligations of an insolvent insurer under the Property and Casualty Guaranty Association Act. The court held that the Act's net-worth exclusion applies to insureds rather than third-party claimants, that the state qualifies as a "person" under the Act's broad definition, that the road commission could not raise an equal protection challenge, and that the exclusion extends to public and governmental entities. These conclusions rested on the statutory text defining covered claims, persons, and the net-worth threshold, along with the road commission's financial statements showing its net worth exceeded the limit. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals decisions denying recovery.

business & regulatory

This case was a premises liability action in which realtor Sally Kubczak sued Chemical Bank after she slipped and fell on an oily, wet garage floor while showing a house that had been foreclosed upon. The bank held a sheriff's deed to the property as mortgagee during the six-month statutory redemption period, but the original owners had moved out, listed the house for sale, and retained the right to redeem it. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled against the bank, finding it could be considered a possessor, but the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the bank was not a possessor because its limited actions—observing the exterior, confirming utilities, paying bills, and adding insurance—did not constitute the requisite control or dominion over the premises. The court therefore directed entry of a judgment of no cause of action for the bank.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved a homeowner's insurance dispute after a child was injured on her father's property in 1984, leading to an intrafamily tort suit that resulted in a default judgment against the father. The father had a homeowners policy from Allstate but failed to notify the insurer of the lawsuit until three months after the default judgment was entered, despite policy requirements to forward all suit papers immediately as a condition precedent to coverage. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the insured, finding insufficient prejudice to Allstate from the delayed notice. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that Allstate could disclaim liability because the insured's failure to provide timely notice of the suit prevented the insurer from defending the action or seeking to set aside the default judgment under then-current court rules, distinguishing it from prior precedents where notice timing allowed relief without material prejudice.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a slip-and-fall injury sustained by plaintiff Fauzie Bitar while working at Beirut Bakery, Inc., a corporation wholly owned by defendant Iskandar Wakim, who also personally owned the leased premises. After receiving workers' compensation benefits from the bakery's insurer, Bitar sued Wakim individually for negligence in maintaining ice and snow in the parking lot. The trial court and Court of Appeals granted summary disposition to Wakim, applying a reverse piercing of the corporate veil to treat him and the corporation as the same entity entitled to the exclusive-remedy defense under the Workers' Disability Compensation Act. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the corporate form should be respected under the equities presented because there was no compelling reason to disregard the separation between shareholder and corporation, as existed in prior cases like Wells v. Firestone. This ruling made it unnecessary to address the dual-capacity doctrine.

labor & employmenttorts & liability