John Warner Fitzgerald

The case involved defendant Ford, who forged a credit card sales slip to obtain cash from a gas station and was charged with uttering and publishing under the general forgery statute rather than the more specific credit card misuse statute. The Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether the credit card protection statutes precluded prosecution under the uttering and publishing law, which carries a higher maximum penalty, and whether the prosecutor abused discretion in selecting the general charge. The Court held that the credit card statutes contain no exclusivity provision and do not bar the general charge, and that charging under the uttering and publishing statute was proper on the facts presented. It reversed the Court of Appeals decision setting aside the conviction and reinstated the guilty plea and consecutive sentence.

criminal law

The case concerned whether Detroit Edison's fuel cost adjustment clause (FCAC), adopted in 1974, functioned as a mechanism to recover actual past fuel costs or as an estimate of current fuel costs based on prior experience when the Michigan Public Service Commission revised the clause in 1975. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's ruling that the FCAC was a fixed-rate tariff using past data to estimate current billing-month costs, not a cost-of-service tariff for dollar-for-dollar past-cost recovery. The court relied on three features of the clause: the adjustment was applied to current-month usage rather than the prior month's usage, departing or new customers faced no special charges or credits for prior periods, and the clause took effect immediately in March 1974 based on January data without creating unauthorized retroactive ratemaking. Because the original FCAC already accounted for December 1974 and January 1975 costs in those months' billings, the court found no collection gap resulted from the 1975 revision.

business & regulatory

The case involved a class action for inverse condemnation brought by owners of 42 parcels in Detroit's Elmwood Park urban renewal area, who alleged a de facto taking of their property by the city's actions without just compensation or formal proceedings. The properties had been acquired by the city through tax foreclosure after the alleged taking but before any condemnation suits. The trial court and Court of Appeals applied a three-year statute of limitations for injuries to property and dismissed most claims as untimely. The Supreme Court held that the three-year statute does not apply to inverse condemnation actions and that equitable principles preclude the city from asserting any statute of limitations defense, given its intent to condemn the parcels and the fact that the cause of action accrued simultaneously for similarly situated properties.

propertyprocedurecivil rights

In People v. Langworthy and People v. Lundy, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed consolidated appeals from defendants convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and second-degree murder after trial courts rejected their attempts to use voluntary intoxication as a defense. Both defendants argued that these offenses should be reclassified as specific-intent crimes to allow the intoxication defense, which Michigan law recognizes only for crimes requiring proof of a particular mental state beyond the intent to commit the physical act. The court reviewed the common-law origins of the exculpatory rule for intoxication and its limitation to specific-intent offenses, concluding that the elements of the charged crimes involve only general intent and therefore do not permit the defense. The convictions were affirmed on that basis.

criminal law

This consolidated appeal from the Michigan Supreme Court involved four cases in which workers injured on the job sued the companies where they had been placed to work, raising the question whether the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act barred their tort claims. Three cases arose from labor-broker arrangements in which temporary employees supplied by staffing agencies were injured while operating equipment at the customer companies; the fourth involved an injury to a hockey league official allegedly caused by a player on a member team. The court reviewed the employment relationships under prior precedents applying control and other factors to identify the statutory employer, then determined whether that employer status triggered immunity from suit. Lower court rulings granting or denying summary judgment on the exclusive-remedy defense were examined to clarify which entity bore responsibility for workers' compensation coverage and the corresponding tort immunity.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved Alvin Carter, charged with aiding and abetting extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion after an employee at a utility office was threatened into surrendering money. The Michigan Supreme Court examined whether a defendant could be convicted of both aiding and abetting the substantive offense and conspiracy to commit that same offense. The court held that dual convictions were permissible under the facts because the crimes involve distinct elements and proofs, with conspiracy addressing the planning stage and aiding and abetting addressing commission of the crime. Additional claims regarding suggestive identification procedures, failure to produce a witness, and admission of evidence about prior misconduct were rejected as meritless. The court therefore affirmed the convictions for extortion under an aiding and abetting theory and for conspiracy to commit extortion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff injured in a 1971 motorcycle accident who obtained a large judgment against the at-fault driver but received nothing after the tortfeasor's minimum statutory liability insurance was exhausted by payments to other claimants and the tortfeasors declared bankruptcy. The plaintiff then sought benefits under the uninsured-motorist provisions of her own policies with State Farm, but the insurer denied coverage. The Michigan Supreme Court held that recovery was unavailable because the tortfeasor carried the required minimum liability limits, applying the plain language of MCL 500.3010 and the policy definitions of an "uninsured motorist." The Court reviewed the arbitration award under the standard for legal error on the face of the decision and affirmed the denial of benefits.

torts & liability

In People v. Bloyd, Michigan Supreme Court case from 1982, police stopped a driver leaving a closed business yard at night without probable cause or reports of crime, questioned him after observing items like gloves and a pry bar in his car, then transported him in a patrol car to check two nearby x-rated businesses for break-ins before arresting him upon discovering evidence of a burglary. The court ruled that the initial stop, extended detention, and transportation violated the defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment and Michigan Constitution article 1, section 11, as the officers lacked probable cause to seize or arrest him. The core reasoning balanced the significant intrusion on personal security—placing the person in a police car and moving him between locations—against law enforcement interests, finding the actions unreasonable without probable cause even under standards for brief investigative stops.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a defendant convicted by jury of inciting another to unlawfully burn a competitor's property in violation of MCL 750.157b. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the ground that the trial court should have instructed the jury on withdrawal as a defense, but the Michigan Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. The court held that the statute requires no proof of an overt act by the person incited and that withdrawal or abandonment after the incitement is not a defense, because the crime is complete upon the defendant's inciting, inducing, or exhorting conduct.

criminal law

In Miklik v. Michigan Special Machine Co., the plaintiff, a toolmaker and machinist, sought workers’ compensation benefits after leaving his job in 1974, claiming that job-related stress and strain caused or aggravated hypertension and heart disease including arteriosclerosis. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board awarded benefits, finding the conditions compensable. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the award, holding that under its prior decision in Kostamo v. Marquette Iron Mining Co., ordinary diseases of life such as arteriosclerosis are not compensable, and benefits require proof of distinct heart damage (such as from a heart attack) that is linked by sufficient evidence to specific workplace incidents rather than general stress or aggravation of pre-existing conditions. The Court found the board’s decision failed to apply this standard, as the medical evidence showed only progressive effects of arteriosclerosis without establishing separate compensable injury or a specific causal connection to employment events.

labor & employment

The case involved defendant Frederick Impens, who was charged with disorderly conduct after a shoplifting incident at a Meijer store. Private security guards, one of whom was an off-duty deputy sheriff, detained Impens and his companions, searched them, and obtained a signed voluntary statement admitting involvement without providing Miranda warnings. The district court admitted the statement into evidence, leading to Impens's conviction, which was affirmed on appeal. The Michigan Supreme Court held that Miranda warnings were not required because the guards were acting as private citizens rather than government agents, and constitutional protections against self-incrimination apply only to state action. The court reasoned that the interrogation was not custodial in the sense of governmental compulsion, and the statement was given voluntarily without coercion.

criminal lawprocedure

This products liability case arose from a 1970 construction accident in which plaintiff Howard Antcliff was injured when a powered scaffold he had helped rig collapsed. Plaintiffs sued the scaffold manufacturer, Spider Staging Sales Company, among others, alleging negligence for failing to provide instructions on safe rigging separate from any duty to warn of dangers. The trial court barred this theory, instructed the jury that no such duty existed, and the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court held that on these facts the manufacturer had no duty to instruct on safe rigging, reasoning that a manufacturer's liability turns on whether its overall conduct was reasonable under the circumstances and that there is no bright-line distinction between instructions and warnings. The Court noted factors including the users' training, the nature of the product, and the absence of any claim that the manufacturer deliberately withheld information.

torts & liability

In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff Anna Veselenak sued surgeon Dr. Sidney Smith and others after a hemostat was left in her abdominal cavity during emergency surgery in 1974 and not removed until 1976, causing ongoing pain and infection; the jury awarded her compensatory damages plus $350,000 in exemplary damages against Dr. Smith for his alleged concealment of the error. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the exemplary damages award and remanded for a new trial limited to ordinary damages. The court reasoned that exemplary damages compensating for injured feelings, pain, suffering, and mental anguish were duplicative of the ordinary damages already available for the same mental distress, and juries should not be instructed in a way that permits double recovery for one injury.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case concerned whether Michigan State University violated the state's Freedom of Information Act by refusing a request for a duplicate magnetic tape of the student directory, which the requester intended to use for political mailings in the November 1978 election. The university offered a printed directory or printout instead and cited exemptions under the Act, including protections tied to student privacy under federal law. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the denial was proper and affirmed the Court of Appeals, ruling that release of the tape would amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under FOIA section 13(1)(a). The court reasoned that although the student list qualified as a public record, disclosure in the requested format was not consistent with the Act's preamble emphasizing information about government affairs, and it distinguished this from other forms of access like a printed list.

electionsfree speechprocedure

This case concerns whether a comprehensive general liability insurance policy issued to builders covered claims arising from a defective drainage system that caused foundation damage and water issues in a newly constructed home. The homeowners sued the builders for breach of warranties and emotional distress; after a partial settlement, the dispute turned on the insurer's duty to indemnify under the policy. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the policy provided no coverage, reversing the lower courts. The core reasoning was that multiple exclusions, particularly those barring coverage for property damage to the insured's own work product or arising from inadequate materials in construction, applied directly to the facts and removed the claims from the basic insuring agreement.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves the professional discipline of attorney Robert A. Grimes, who faced two counts of misconduct: felony convictions for federal income tax evasion in a net-worth prosecution involving over $100,000 in unreported income from 1971 and 1972, and counseling a client to lie to investigators by backdating a loan agreement document. A hearing panel initially suspended his license for 60 days, which the Attorney Discipline Board increased to 120 days after finding violations of Michigan Court Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility, including conduct involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and prejudice to the administration of justice. The Michigan Supreme Court revoked Grimes' license to practice law instead, holding that the felony convictions and deceptive conduct warranted disbarment to serve the protective purpose of attorney disciplinary proceedings.

criminal lawtaxes

This case concerned skilled nursing care facilities that participated in Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan's convalescent care program and objected to the insurer's 1977 termination of prior contracts and adoption of new reimbursement rates tied to the 80th percentile of regional Medicare payments. The providers requested a formal contested-case evidentiary hearing before the Insurance Commissioner under the Administrative Procedures Act or constitutional due process, asserting that the lower rates would not cover costs and force them to discontinue services, but the commissioner denied the request, held only a public hearing, and approved the changes. The court addressed whether providers possessed a right to such a hearing prior to rate approval. The commissioner's decision rested on the view that the applicable statutes governing Blue Cross rate approvals did not require contested-case proceedings or guarantee providers compensation levels. Core reasoning examined the scope of the commissioner's authority, the statutory criteria for rate review focused on solvency and bona fides rather than provider costs, and the procedural distinctions between informal public hearings and formal contested cases.

healthcareprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Langley v. Harris Corp., an employee injured by a die-cutting press sued the successor corporation to the press's original manufacturer on products liability theories of negligence and warranty. After the employer was dismissed under the workers' compensation exclusivity rule, the successor filed a third-party claim seeking indemnity from the employer, arguing its own liability was merely vicarious and without personal fault. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the successor corporation was not entitled to indemnity. The court reasoned that implied indemnity does not arise where the underlying claim involves allegations of active negligence, that workers' compensation exclusivity bars claims arising from the employment relationship, and that prior indemnity precedents like Dale v. Whiteman do not extend to successor corporate liability under Turner v. Bituminous Casualty Co.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case arose from a 1974 motorcycle collision in which plaintiff Wood, who lacked no-fault coverage, sought personal injury protection benefits from defendant DAIIE, the insurer of the other driver. After defendant paid some benefits and then terminated them, plaintiff sued; when defendant repeatedly failed to answer interrogatories despite two court orders, the trial court entered a default judgment awarding wage-loss benefits, mental anguish damages, attorney fees, and interest. The Court of Appeals reversed the mental anguish award and suggested reconsideration of attorney fees but upheld the remainder. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, confirming that a default establishes liability but that a defaulting party retains the right to participate in proceedings to determine damages, while also addressing applicable interest rates under the no-fault statute and general judgment-interest provisions.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a challenge by the Socialist Workers Party and others to Michigan's 1976 PA 94, which added a requirement that new political parties receive at least 3/10 of 1% of the total primary votes to qualify for the general election ballot, in addition to a petition requirement that had previously been sufficient. Plaintiffs argued that the new rule violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments as well as provisions of the Michigan Constitution. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the claim was not barred by res judicata from a prior federal district court decision that had been summarily affirmed, because summary affirmances carry limited precedential weight and the issues could be revisited. On the merits, the court concluded that the statute infringed the rights of new parties and their supporters under the federal and state constitutions. It reversed the circuit court's grant of accelerated judgment to the defendant and remanded for further proceedings.

electionsfree speechcivil rights