Thomas G. Kavanagh

This case concerned whether Michigan's Hazardous Waste Management Act preempted a local zoning ordinance that barred construction of a hazardous waste processing facility on land zoned for extractive use in Groveland Township. The dispute arose after Stablex sought to build a plant to treat toxic waste and use the resulting material to reclaim a former gravel mining site, relying on a prior consent judgment that required filling the excavated areas with inorganic material. The trial court ruled in favor of Stablex, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the facility was not a permitted use under the zoning ordinance and that the consent judgment did not override those restrictions. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the Act does not preempt local land-use regulations and that the proposed plant must comply with the township's zoning ordinance.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryproperty

In People v. Jones, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder and felony-firearm in connection with a fatal shooting; the jury convicted him of second-degree murder and felony-firearm. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding error in the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, holding that the given instructions did not fully and fairly present the case to the jury. Although the defendant did not explicitly claim accident at trial, evidence including his statements to his girlfriend supported the possibility that the shooting was unintentional, and the judge's sua sponte instruction on voluntary manslaughter required a corresponding instruction on involuntary manslaughter to allow the jury to consider a criminal-negligence theory. The court noted that without any manslaughter instruction there would have been no reversible error, but once manslaughter was addressed the instructions could not omit the defense theory.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved two defendants convicted of driving while impaired after police found them asleep in stationary vehicles with engines running, one legally parked and the other partially in a ditch. The Michigan Supreme Court considered whether an intoxicated person asleep in the driver’s seat of a motionless car qualifies as "operating" a vehicle under MCL 257.625b and parallel local ordinances, which define an operator as one in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. The court held that under any reasonable reading of the statute, sleeping in a motionless car does not constitute operating the vehicle at the time of arrest. The core reasoning focused on the statutory language requiring present operation or control, distinguishing the facts from scenarios where a car is in motion or the driver is awake, and noted the absence of evidence of prior impaired driving in one case.

criminal law

In Clifford v. Cactus Drilling Corp., an at-will employee sued his employer after being fired for missing work due to a recurrence of pain from a prior work-related injury, for which he had already received workers' compensation benefits. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the employee's complaint did not state a valid public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The court reasoned that while retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim violates public policy, as established in prior precedent, discharge for absence due to injury does not necessarily chill the employee's statutory rights under the Workers' Disability Compensation Act. The decision reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's summary judgment for the defendant.

labor & employment

This case involved plaintiffs suing the Sanilac County Road Commission for personal injuries from a collision between their truck and a county-owned vehicle spreading salt on a state trunk line highway, with claims including negligent operation of the motor vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on grounds of statutory immunity under MCL 250.61 for counties performing highway maintenance, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, ruling that county road commissions are liable for the negligent operation of their motor vehicles even when engaged in construction, improvement, or maintenance of state highways. The court reasoned that the later governmental immunity statute, MCL 691.1405, which specifically imposes liability on governmental agencies for negligent motor vehicle operation, controls over and creates an exception to the earlier statute relieving counties of such liabilities.

torts & liability

In Morris v. Metriyakool, consolidated with Jackson v. Detroit Memorial Hospital, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed challenges to the Medical Malpractice Arbitration Act of 1975, which permits patients to agree to arbitrate malpractice claims against hospitals and providers rather than litigate in court. Plaintiffs argued that the required three-member arbitration panels—an attorney as chair, a physician or hospital administrator, and a layperson—created an unconstitutional risk of bias, violating due process rights to an impartial decisionmaker, and that the agreements were unconscionable or contracts of adhesion. The Court upheld the Act's constitutionality, ruling that the agreements are voluntary with 60-day revocation periods and explicit notices that arbitration is not required for treatment, and that the panel composition does not inherently deprive claimants of impartiality under the Due Process Clause. The decisions below granting motions to compel arbitration were affirmed.

civil rightsprocedurehealthcaretorts & liability

The case concerned whether the widow of a deceased Detroit Recorder's Court judge was entitled under the Judges' Retirement Act to an annuity that escalated with increases in state-paid circuit judges' salaries, or instead received only a fixed amount based on the judge's salary at the time of his 1961 death. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Claims and Court of Appeals, holding that the widow's annuity must increase. The court reasoned that the plain language of former § 19a incorporated by reference the escalator provision of § 14, which tied annuities to current circuit judge salaries, and that the contrary long-standing administrative interpretation was incorrect and not controlling.

labor & employment

This case involved a defendant charged with second-degree criminal sexual conduct who raised an insanity defense at trial. The prosecution's expert witness, over objection, was permitted to read the defendant's lengthy prior criminal record (including 32 offenses) into evidence as the basis for his opinion that the defendant was sane. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that although the Michigan Rules of Evidence permit an expert to disclose underlying facts, the trial court must also apply MRE 403 to exclude evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; the extensive record here created a risk that the jury would convict based on the defendant's character rather than the charged offense, and limiting instructions could not cure the harm.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a defendant convicted of assault with intent to commit third-degree criminal sexual conduct after engaging in sexual penetration with a 13-year-old, where the activity was not claimed to involve force. The Michigan Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that consent is a defense to the assault charge because assault requires proof of force or threat creating reasonable apprehension of injury, even though consent is irrelevant to charges of statutory rape or attempt. The court reasoned that equating assault with attempted criminal sexual conduct would render the separate statutes redundant and that the Legislature had already provided protections for minors through the criminal sexual conduct laws without needing to expand assault definitions.

criminal law

The case involved the conviction of defendant Parker for armed robbery and first-degree criminal sexual conduct arising from an alleged attack in a Detroit parking lot and subsequent events. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the defendant's warrantless arrest in his home violated the Fourth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution. The core reasoning was that no exigent circumstances justified the arrest without a warrant, as required by Payton v. New York, rendering the seized evidence (including cash and a nail file) and related statements inadmissible. Other claims regarding counsel effectiveness and jury procedures were considered but did not independently require reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a plaintiff severely injured when his car was struck by a fleeing driver being pursued by Ann Arbor police officers at high speeds through city streets after the driver ignored a stop signal. The plaintiff sued the city and the officers for negligence in conducting the pursuit. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for the city and two officers, holding that the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity applies if the officers' operation of their vehicles during the chase was negligent and proximately caused the injuries, and that material factual disputes existed on those issues requiring a trial. The court affirmed summary judgment for a third officer whose actions were not a proximate cause. The decision focused on whether the pursuit constituted negligent vehicle operation under state law.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a worker who lost his right hand in a 1962 workplace accident and had a pre-existing non-work-related vision impairment in his left eye; he sought total and permanent disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund on top of specific-loss benefits already paid by the employer. The court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s denial of those additional benefits. It held that, for purposes of Second Injury Fund eligibility, whether the prior eye condition constituted a qualifying permanent disability must be assessed under a corrected-vision standard rather than an uncorrected-vision standard. The statutory language and legislative purpose of the Fund—to remove disincentives for hiring handicapped workers—require this distinct standard for total-and-permanent claims, unlike the uncorrected standard used for ordinary specific-loss awards.

labor & employment

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by plaintiff Clark against employer Cadillac Gage and the Second Injury Fund for total and permanent disability benefits, based on a prior loss of an eye followed by loss of industrial use of a leg from a work injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board had held the Fund bound by the employer's stipulation and admission regarding the eye loss, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Fund's liability is not derivative in the sense that it is automatically bound by the employer's stipulations or admissions, especially where the employer had no financial incentive to contest the prior injury claim. The Court limited its prior decision in White v. Weinberger Builders and remanded for the Board to address the merits of whether the plaintiff had a preexisting disabling eye injury.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved defendant Salvadore Gonzales, who was charged with first-degree murder of Elmer Evans based almost entirely on the testimony of witness Rhonna Burns. Burns' account of events on the night of the crime had been refreshed through hypnosis prior to trial, and the trial court admitted her testimony over defense objections that the process may have tainted her memory; Gonzales was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the ground that the hypnotically refreshed testimony was improperly admitted, and the Supreme Court affirmed that reversal, citing both the lower court's reasoning and additional concerns about the reliability risks of hypnosis, including failures to meet standards such as those outlined in State v. Hurd.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a jury convicted defendant of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and breaking and entering but found him guilty but mentally ill after he conceded committing the acts and raised an insanity defense. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence of sanity once police testimony was excluded. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that even including the officers' testimony, no rational trier of fact could have found the defendant sane beyond a reasonable doubt under the Jackson v. Virginia standard when viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The Court remanded for entry of a judgment of not guilty by reason of insanity and commitment for psychiatric treatment, noting that double jeopardy bars retrial after a finding of insufficient evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jesse James Jones, convicted of first-degree murder partly based on a confessional statement he gave police. Jones made the statement after being offered a plea deal—dropping federal and state weapons charges in exchange for pleading guilty to manslaughter and testifying against others—but he later refused to complete the agreement. The trial court admitted the confession after finding it voluntary, and the Court of Appeals affirmed under a totality-of-circumstances analysis. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that statements made pursuant to a plea agreement are inadmissible per se under the Fifth Amendment's protection against compelled self-incrimination and related policy concerns akin to rules barring use of plea-negotiation statements.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a class action lawsuit brought by individuals against bail bond agency owners, alleging violations of Michigan statutes limiting bail bond fees and collateral to 10% of the bond's face value, as well as challenging the constitutionality of a statute allowing bondsmen to unilaterally revoke bonds and re-arrest principals without a hearing. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the statute unambiguously caps fees at 10% but does not restrict the taking of collateral security, redefined the plaintiff class to cover claims within a six-year statute of limitations, and determined that two of the named plaintiffs could represent the class while a third could not. The Court vacated lower court rulings on the constitutionality of the revocation statute, finding no plaintiff with standing to raise the due process issue. The decisions rested on statutory interpretation of the relevant Michigan laws and procedural rules regarding class certification and standing.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case concerned whether a corporate officer could be held personally liable for debts a corporation incurred after its charter was voided for failing to file annual reports and pay fees. The trial court and Court of Appeals found the officer liable on statutory, fiduciary-duty, and partnership grounds, but the Michigan Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that the relevant statute (MCL 450.87) imposes personal liability only for obligations arising during the two-year default period before charter forfeiture, not afterward, and that the other asserted bases did not apply because the creditor dealt solely with the corporation and no breach of duty to the corporation was shown. The decision rested on strict construction of the penal statute and legislative intent reflected in its later repeal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the appeal of David Long's conviction for marijuana possession after police stopped his vehicle for speeding, observed a knife inside, and conducted warrantless searches of the car's interior and trunk that uncovered the drugs. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the conviction, ruling that the interior search violated the Fourth Amendment because the defendant was already secured outside the vehicle under an officer's control, making the search exceed the limited scope authorized by Terry v. Ohio for protective frisks. The court further held that the trunk search was not a valid inventory procedure but rather an investigative search lacking probable cause or other justification under the automobile exception or impoundment rules.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over confirmation of an arbitration award under Michigan court rules, where the defendant denied the existence of any valid arbitration agreement because its former employee lacked authority to bind the company and no representative appeared at the hearing. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the defense of no valid agreement to arbitrate may be raised in an action to confirm or enforce an award, even if not raised earlier. The court reasoned that arbitration is a matter of contract requiring consent, so the existence of a binding agreement is a condition precedent to the circuit court's jurisdiction under MCL 600.5025 and GCR 1963, 769; this jurisdictional challenge differs from disputes over the scope of an acknowledged agreement and is not subject to waiver or time limits applicable to motions to vacate. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed and the case remanded to the circuit court for a determination on whether a binding agreement existed.

procedure