Harry F. Kelly

The case involved a probationary teacher in the Elk Rapids school district who sued for a writ of mandamus after the school board notified him in February 1968 that he would not receive a contract for the following year, without providing a definite written statement on whether his work had been satisfactory as required by the Michigan teachers' tenure act. The teacher argued that the board failed to follow the act's mandatory procedures and that its actions were arbitrary, while also raising due process claims under state and federal constitutions. The Michigan Supreme Court held that mandamus should issue, ruling that the teacher was entitled to tenure because he had completed the probationary period without receiving the required notice of unsatisfactory performance. The core reasoning was that the tenure act's provisions must be followed strictly, so that upon satisfactory completion of probation without notice of deficiencies, a teacher gains an enforceable right to continued employment under the statute.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved defendant Walter Gould, who was convicted by a jury of larceny from the person and carrying a concealed weapon following a restaurant robbery in which money was taken from a cash register and a customer's wallet. The Court of Appeals reversed the larceny conviction on the ground that it was not an included offense because the information alleged only a taking from the cash register in the waitress's presence, not directly from a person. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part, holding that property taken in the immediate presence and possession of the victims satisfies the larceny-from-the-person statute, and affirmed the reversal of the concealed-weapon conviction due to insufficient proof that the defendants lacked a license.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from 1967 Detroit riot charges against Detroit police officers Robert Paille and David Senak, along with a private guard, for conspiring to commit the legal act of investigating sniping at the Algiers Motel in an illegal manner by beating and coercing motel occupants. The examining magistrate dismissed the conspiracy warrant after finding the prosecution witnesses' testimony incredible and perjurious, concluding there was no credible evidence that any conspiracy occurred or that the defendants participated. The circuit judge denied the prosecutor's motion to reinstate, holding that the magistrate properly assessed witness credibility and that no competent evidence supported the charged offense or probable cause. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the magistrate did not abuse discretion in determining credibility or finding insufficient evidence of the corpus delicti and defendants' connection to the crime.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over a recorded deed in which parents transferred a farm they owned as tenants by the entireties to two of their children (the defendants), reserving a life estate for themselves; the other children (the plaintiffs) sought to cancel the deed after the parents' deaths, alleging undue influence. The trial court set aside the deed, finding that a confidential relationship existed and that the defendants had failed to prove the transaction was fair. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of a confidential relationship but held that the dead man's statute had been misapplied to exclude the defendants' testimony and remanded for a new trial. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding that the dead man's statute properly barred the testimony, that no offer of proof had been made to preserve the issue, and that precedent did not extend will-contest exceptions to this deed transaction. The court also upheld the existence of the confidential relationship and the resulting burden on the defendants.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case concerned a union representation election conducted by the Michigan Labor Mediation Board at National Music Camp, where two unions objected to the results based on alleged employer pre-election misconduct and unfair labor practices. The board held a hearing, adopted its examiner's findings, set aside the election, ordered a rerun, and directed the employer to cease certain practices and take remedial actions. When the employer refused to comply, the board petitioned the Court of Appeals for enforcement; that court issued a summary compliance order, determining that the employer had failed to adequately specify which board findings lacked support from competent, material, and substantial evidence on the record as a whole. The opinion analyzed the statutory enforcement and review procedures under the Labor Mediation Act (subsections e and f), noting parallels to the National Labor Relations Act and emphasizing that only properly preserved objections may be considered while board factual findings supported by substantial evidence are conclusive.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the proper interpretation of a 1932 will executed by Kate Lindsay that devised certain real property to her son Clare Lindsay, with conditional language stating that if Clare 'shall become deceased leaving children,' the property would pass to those children upon reaching age twenty-one. Clare's guardian sued to quiet title in fee simple, but Clare's son Ellsworth answered asserting his own contingent interest; the trial court and Court of Appeals construed the will as granting Clare only a life estate. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that Clare received a fee simple absolute. The court reached this result by construing the entire instrument, applying the rule that favors early vesting of estates, and determining that the conditional language was meant to address only the possibility that Clare would predecease the testatrix rather than to limit his interest if he survived her.

property

The case concerned the murder of Charles Johnson in his garage, for which defendant Shaw was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. The key issue was the admissibility of a .22-caliber shell casing found in Shaw's car after police seized it without a warrant; the trial court admitted the evidence based on a detective's testimony that Shaw had consented during questioning, but the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed that decision, applying the rule that consent to search must be shown by clear and positive testimony while indulging every reasonable presumption against waiver. The court found the single detective's account insufficient due to conflicts with the defendant's denial, lack of written consent or corroboration from the second officer present, and the fact that the car had already been impounded before any purported consent was discussed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the Michigan Parole Board could extend the term of a prisoner's parole by three years without providing notice or a hearing, based on its review of the prisoner's file showing poor adjustment and pending charges. The Court of Appeals had ordered the prisoner discharged from parole, ruling that due process and statutory requirements entitled him to a hearing akin to a parole violation proceeding and that a record was needed for judicial review. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the relevant statute (§36) grants the board discretion to amend, revise, or extend parole orders without a formal hearing unless the action amounts to revocation for an accused violation under §40. The Court reasoned that extending parole maintains the existing conditional liberty without material change, that the board's longstanding practice supported this interpretation, and that courts lack supervisory power over the length of parole terms just as they lack power over minimum sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Walter Blakes and Emmett Pruitt, who were convicted of conspiring to violate Michigan's gaming and gambling laws following a police investigation into a numbers lottery operation. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed their convictions, holding that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the existence of a conspiracy between them. The court reasoned that there was no proof of communication or exchange of materials between Pruitt and Blakes, and that mere association or suspicious circumstances did not suffice to prove a criminal agreement, consistent with precedents like People v. Sobczak. Blakes' post-arrest statement directing officers to gambling materials could not be used to prove the corpus delicti of the conspiracy.

criminal law

The case concerns Eva King, who lost her arm in a 1948 workplace accident at Ford Motor Company and received workers' compensation benefits, including payments from the Second Injury Fund after she was deemed totally and permanently disabled. Following 1965 statutory amendments that raised maximum benefit rates, the dispute centered on whether the Fund must pay her the new $58 weekly maximum for a worker with no dependents or is limited so that her total compensation does not exceed two-thirds of her 1948 average weekly wage of $55.80. The hearing referee ordered the lower capped rate of $37.20, and a 4-3 decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board affirmed that ruling. The court's core reasoning examined the language of part 2, section 9, paragraph (a) of the act, particularly the phrases directing payment of the difference between amounts received from the employer and the current schedule 'according to the full rate provided in the schedule of benefits' after applying other paragraphs since the date of injury.

labor & employment

The case involved a worker injured in 1955 who sought additional workers' compensation benefits for permanent and total disability based on the loss of industrial use of both arms, after receiving initial benefits for 500 weeks. The hearing referee and appeal board had ordered the employer, Chrysler Corporation, to pay extended benefits at certain rates, with the second injury fund covering some increases. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that under the 1956 and 1965 amendments to the workers' compensation act, benefits for this newly recognized category of total and permanent disability were to be paid solely by the second injury fund rather than the employer. The core reasoning rested on the legislature's intent, as expressed in the statutory language, to spread the cost of expanded benefits across all employers through the fund, consistent with the court's prior interpretation in Clark v. Chrysler.

labor & employment

This case involved a negligence lawsuit arising from a 1962 car-pedestrian collision in which a seven-year-old boy was struck while crossing a street in Grand Rapids; the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action in favor of the defendant driver and her husband. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding that verdict. The court held that the trial judge’s instructions on ordinary care under the circumstances were adequate and that no separate instruction on a statutory duty to sound the horn was required, as the record did not show it was reasonably necessary. It also rejected claims that the jury should have been told motorists owe a greater quantum of care than pedestrians or that contributory negligence must be a “substantial factor,” finding Michigan law does not draw such distinctions. Finally, the court upheld the exclusion of deposition testimony offered to impeach a witness on an immaterial point.

torts & liability

In People v. Rosa, Detroit police conducted a warrantless search of the defendant's hotel room based on an anonymous tip about a bank robbery, seizing narcotics, a syringe, and $3,537 in cash, which led to narcotics possession charges that were dismissed after a preliminary examination found the arrest and search unconstitutional. The defendant then moved in recorder's court for return of the money, but the court held it lacked jurisdiction and required a separate civil action. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the recorder's court has ancillary jurisdiction in such criminal cases to determine the right to possession of illegally seized property and order its return, based on the statute granting it powers equivalent to circuit courts in criminal proceedings within Detroit, without authorizing general civil jurisdiction over title disputes.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit arising from a 1963 automobile accident in which defendant Louis Jones, driving a car owned by defendant Heriberto Miranda, struck the plaintiffs' porch, injuring Ollie Mae Smith. The plaintiffs sued both defendants for damages, but only Miranda was served; a jury awarded the plaintiffs modest compensatory damages against Miranda. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on gross negligence or exemplary damages because Michigan's owner-liability statute imputes only ordinary negligence to the vehicle owner. The Court also found no error in the trial court's instructions regarding the plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages through medical treatment and the requirement that damages be directly traceable to the accident rather than preexisting conditions.

torts & liability

The case concerned whether lessees of publicly owned airport property in Kent County, Michigan—including a motel and restaurants operated by Fred Harvey and aviation facilities leased to Northern Air Service—were subject to real property taxes under a 1953 statute as amended. The statute generally taxes users of tax-exempt public property when used for profit but explicitly excepts concessions relative to the use of a public airport available to the general public. The Kent County circuit court ruled in favor of the county and lessees, finding the uses qualified for the airport exception, and the Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the consolidated appeals. The core reasoning focused on the statutory language creating the airport-specific exemption and factual findings that the facilities served airport patrons and operations while remaining open to the public.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatory

Ernest J. Vida was convicted in Detroit recorder’s court of obtaining personal property valued over $100 by false pretenses after using bad checks drawn on a fictitious real estate business to acquire multiple automobiles from private sellers. The trial court imposed a sentence of 7½ to 10 years, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. On further appeal, Vida challenged the trial judge’s questioning of witnesses, certain jury instructions, and the admission of evidence showing his false representations about identity and business purpose; the Michigan Supreme Court rejected these claims, holding that the record established the false pretenses, reliance by the victims, and no reversible trial error. The court affirmed the conviction but remanded solely to correct a discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written mittimus.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a personal injury suit brought by Margaret Jo Delle Woods against several defendants, including Florida-based manufacturer B.A. Schiff & Associates, Inc., after she was injured on a "Wild Mouse" amusement ride at Edgewater Amusement Park in Michigan. Schiff moved to quash service and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing it had no contacts with Michigan, had sold the ride indirectly through a third party in New Jersey, and had not installed or operated it in the state. The Michigan Supreme Court held that Schiff was subject to limited personal jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute because it had transacted business or caused tortious consequences in Michigan, satisfying due process requirements under precedents like International Shoe. The court also ruled that service by registered mail on Schiff and the Michigan Corporation & Securities Commission was valid under GCR 1963, 105.4, affirming the lower court's denial of the motion to quash.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Frank Halas, who lost both hands in a 1950 workplace accident while employed by Yale Rubber Manufacturing Co. After receiving total and permanent disability benefits for 800 weeks, the court considered whether he remained entitled to ongoing payments from the second injury fund without any reduction for his subsequent earnings. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the appeal board's decision that benefits should continue at full current rates without set-off. The reasoning centered on the legislative intent behind 1955 and 1956 amendments to the workers' compensation act, which established that post-800-week payments from the second injury fund are to be made according to the full schedule of benefits, independent of the set-off provisions in section 11.

labor & employment

This case arose from a 1960 bicycle accident in which plaintiff Richard Ballog, a minor, was injured by a falling paper roll from a truck owned by defendant Knight Newspapers; suit was filed in 1965, resulting in a $50,000 jury verdict for the plaintiff in December 1965. The dispute centered on whether an amended statute effective July 21, 1965, which allowed 5% interest on money judgments to be calculated from the date the complaint was filed (rather than from the judgment date), applied to this case. The trial court and Court of Appeals held that the amendment was substantive and applied only prospectively to complaints filed after its effective date, denying interest from the filing date. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the amendment concerned remedies and modes of procedure rather than substantive rights, and therefore operated retrospectively to apply to judgments entered after its enactment, including this one.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In People v. Lang, the defendant was charged with felonious assault, initially stood mute leading to a not guilty plea, then changed to a guilty plea after a detailed colloquy with the trial court confirming his understanding of the charge, rights, and consequences. He was sentenced to 1.5 to 4 years in prison, and later moved to withdraw the plea after the parole board denied early release, arguing the plea was not understandingly made and raising separation of powers issues. The trial court denied the motion, finding compliance with plea acceptance rules and no abuse of discretion, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that withdrawal of a guilty plea after sentencing rests in the trial court's sound discretion with no showing of error on the record.

criminal lawprocedure