Charles Levin

In People v. LoCicero, the defendants were charged with drug possession offenses after police stopped their vehicle based on observations of two cars meeting in parking lots, one passenger briefly walking around and looking about, and a short conversation between occupants, leading to the discovery of marijuana, cocaine, and other items. The district and circuit courts dismissed the charges and suppressed the evidence, finding the stop lacked reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio. The Court of Appeals had reversed that ruling. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officers' observations amounted to no more than an inchoate hunch rather than a reasonably articulable suspicion of criminal activity under the totality of circumstances, violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures, and that the evidence obtained must therefore be suppressed.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case concerned whether the Oakland County Probate Court abused its discretion in denying a prosecutor's motion to waive jurisdiction over defendant Joseph Dale Fultz to circuit court for trial as an adult. Fultz faced charges of first-degree criminal sexual conduct allegedly committed at age sixteen against his seven-year-old niece, though proceedings began after he turned twenty-three and was no longer eligible for juvenile facilities. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and probate court, ordering waiver of jurisdiction, and adopted the Court of Appeals dissent's view that the seriousness of the alleged offense and the interests of public welfare and security required transfer despite Fultz's age and lack of subsequent criminal activity.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Dye, the defendant was convicted after three trials of first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree murder, and felony firearm possession for the 1982 shooting deaths of two women at a motorcycle club, with the prosecution relying on testimony from immunized witnesses and forensic evidence about blood patterns while the defense claimed another club member committed the crimes. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the delayed application for leave to appeal, dismissed the complaint for superintending control and related stay motion as moot, and stated it was not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by the Court. Justice Levin dissented and would have granted leave, highlighting potential issues such as the admission of the defendant's statements about a prior firebombing despite a Miranda waiver agreement, the prosecutor's use of prearrest silence to impeach the defendant's story, and the trial court's delayed ruling on a discovery violation involving a victim's address book that affected credibility in what was essentially a contest between the defendant and an immunized witness.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether a land contract vendee had timely redeemed the property within the statutory ninety-day period following a forfeiture judgment by tendering payment through a title company conditional on receiving a simultaneous conveyance of title and lien discharges from the vendor. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the motion for rehearing of its earlier decision, which had concluded that the vendee failed to redeem because the statute requires unconditional payment without conditioning it on conveyance. The court's reasoning centered on the statutory language requiring payment within the redemption period, the lack of any fraud that might excuse tender, and the absence of an explicit statutory mandate for simultaneous conveyance, even though the underlying land contract obligated the vendor to convey upon full payment.

property

In this workers' compensation case, Victoria Lawrence was injured at her job with Prompt Answering/DeBonte Electric, which prevented her from continuing that work, but she was able to keep her part-time seasonal job selling movie tickets at Plainfield Drive-In. The Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether wages from both jobs should be combined to calculate her average weekly wage for benefit purposes, whether she lost earning capacity from the second job, and whether the Second Injury Fund could be liable for a portion of benefits. The court ruled that the 1980 amendments to the Worker's Disability Compensation Act require including wages from all employments in the average weekly wage calculation. It further held that the Second Injury Fund has no reimbursement liability for benefits replacing wages from the injured employment, even if the worker continues the other job, and remanded the earning capacity question as a factual issue for the magistrate.

labor & employment

The case involved a dispute over workers' compensation benefits for Harry Quinton, who had received an open award for a pre-1982 work-related disability from General Motors; after the 1981 addition of coordination provisions in § 354, benefits were reduced starting in 1982, a ruling upheld on remand from Franks v. White Pine Copper Div. following this Court's 1985 decision that § 354 applied retroactively. The question was whether 1987 legislation amending § 354 to bar such coordination for pre-March 31, 1982 injuries could apply despite the prior Franks-based adjudication, or whether separation of powers barred retroactive legislative override of that ruling. The Court held that the 1987 amendments apply to all workers injured before that date regardless of any prior Franks adjudication. The core reasoning was that only benefits reduced to final judgment before the 1987 enactment are exempt from the new provisions, and the WCAB order here did not qualify as such a protected final judgment.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned applications by multiple hospitals for certificates of need under Michigan's Public Health Code to add beds or construct new facilities in the Pontiac subarea of Oakland County. The Department of Public Health denied all applications after finding no demonstrated need, the Certificate of Need Board affirmed the denials except for one applicant, the circuit court upheld the denials and reversed the one grant, and the Court of Appeals ordered certificates issued to all applicants on the ground that the department had failed to ensure consistency with a state medical facilities plan as required by statute. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the statutory consistency requirement did not compel the remedy of granting all certificates, and remanded for further proceedings to address the legal and factual adequacy of the board's decision on the one granted application.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involved Rivergate Manor's request to the Certificate of Need Board to modify an existing certificate of need, originally granted for a nursing home in Riverview, to allow construction instead in a different subarea in Westland. The Michigan Department of Public Health challenged the Board's approval of the modification, arguing that the Board lacked authority to act and failed to follow required procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act, such as proper notice and contested-case processes. The circuit court issued an order of superintending control vacating the modification, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court had jurisdiction because the Department had no right to appeal and that the Board exceeded its authority by granting the site change without adhering to statutory requirements for demonstrating need in the new location.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

The case involved a dispute between insurers over coverage for injuries to a five-year-old child who was dropped off by a school bus driver at the wrong stop and then struck by a car while walking to her destination. The general liability insurer (Michigan Mutual) argued its policy excluded coverage because the injury arose from the use of the school bus, while the automobile liability insurer (State Farm) contended the injury resulted from the driver's separate negligent act. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the injury arose out of the use of the school bus, as disembarking the child at an incorrect location constituted such use and the resulting harm was foreseeably connected to it. Therefore, the automobile policy provided coverage and the general liability exclusion applied. The decision reversed the lower courts' rulings that had assigned primary liability to the general liability insurer.

torts & liability

The case involved siblings Ruth Ann Mieras and Elmer Ledbetter suing attorney Ronald DeBona for negligence in drafting their mother Nita Jackson's will. Shortly before her death, Jackson instructed DeBona to revise her will to disinherit her daughter Juanita Neville and divide her estate equally between the plaintiffs, but the will omitted exercise of a power of appointment over a marital trust, allowing Neville to receive one-third of the trust corpus. The plaintiffs sought damages including the amount Neville received and related costs. The circuit court granted summary disposition to DeBona on grounds of no attorney-client relationship with the plaintiffs, but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that named intended beneficiaries could pursue a claim where the testator's intent expressed in the will was frustrated by the drafting error and no conflict of interest arose for the attorney.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved a plaintiff who was injured after stepping into a known pothole on the defendants' property while walking to a bus stop and attempting to avoid oncoming cars. The trial court granted summary disposition to the defendants on the basis of precedent holding that premises owners have no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's delayed application for leave to appeal, stating it was not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed. Dissenting justices contended that the open and obvious doctrine concerns only the duty to warn and leaves intact a separate duty to maintain the premises.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case concerned the interpretation of Michigan statutes governing parole jurisdiction and consecutive sentencing for a defendant who committed a new felony while on parole. Gregory Young, paroled after an armed robbery conviction, was later convicted of breaking and entering; the dispute centered on whether provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure required him to serve the maximum of his original sentence before starting the new one, or whether corrections act sections allowed parole consideration after combined minimum terms. The Court of Appeals had held that the later statute impliedly repealed the earlier ones and mandated serving the full prior maximum first. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the statutes could be reconciled without repeal, so that a parole violator must serve at least the combined minimum sentences plus any additional time the Parole Board imposes for the violation before the new sentence begins. The core reasoning was that the "remaining portion" language in the criminal procedure statute does not override the parole board's authority under the corrections act once total minimum terms are served.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the Michigan Gaming Institute's application to the State Board of Education for approval to operate a proprietary school training prospective casino employees. The Board denied the application, but the Wayne Circuit Court and Court of Appeals reversed that denial. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and reinstated the Board's decision. It held that the denial was authorized by law under the state constitution and should therefore be upheld, adopting the reasoning of the Court of Appeals dissent.

business & regulatory

The case involved Gordon Ghrist, an employee injured when his hand was caught in a die that Chrysler/Jeep Eagle had designed and manufactured, specifically due to allegedly unsafe T-shaped kickers that created pinch points. The trial court granted summary disposition to the defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on prior decisions holding that suppliers of dies had no duty to add safety features or guard against unsafe use by employers. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed and remanded for trial, ruling that a manufacturer of a die can face liability for negligent design and manufacture. The court reasoned that manufacturers bear greater responsibility than mere suppliers because they have superior knowledge of the product's capabilities, are best positioned to implement safety improvements, and impliedly warrant the product's safety for intended and foreseeable uses, creating a duty to eliminate unreasonable risks of foreseeable injury.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

The case involved Leroy Hren, who was injured by a car while crossing a dimly lit street after leaving a bar, and sued Detroit Edison for failing to maintain streetlights under its contract with the city. The circuit court granted the defendant's motion for summary disposition on the ground that Edison owed no duty to the plaintiff, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, stating that the questions presented did not merit further review. Justice Levin dissented, noting that other jurisdictions have moved away from the traditional rule limiting third-party liability arising from municipal utility contracts.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In People v. Washington, officers executing a search warrant encountered the defendant, who fired a single shot that missed the lead officer but ricocheted, with fragments striking the legs of a second officer without breaking the skin. The defendant was convicted of two counts of assault with intent to commit murder, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on transferred intent to support multiple convictions from one shot. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the delayed application for leave to appeal, concluding that the questions presented did not warrant review by the Court. Dissenting justices contended that jurisdictions following the single-crime rule would treat the incident as one offense, as the focus should remain on the actor's single culpable act and intent rather than the number of victims injured.

criminal law

The case involved an elderly patient, Sarah Garabedian, who fell from her hospital bed at William Beaumont Hospital, fracturing her hip, after being treated for a severe headache and blindness; her daughter had warned staff about her disoriented condition and requested to stay with her, but the request was denied and no formal mental assessment or restraints were provided. Plaintiff sued for negligence, claiming the hospital staff failed to meet the standard of care by not evaluating her mental state or implementing interventions like supervision or side rails. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant, the Court of Appeals affirmed on grounds that the circumstantial evidence of causation was too speculative to support a finding that negligence more likely than not caused the injury, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.

healthcaretorts & liability

In People v. Diaz, the defendant was convicted of two counts of delivering less than 50 grams of a controlled substance and received consecutive sentences of 5 to 20 years each. He sought leave to appeal, arguing that the resulting 10-year minimum sentence was disproportionate under the principles from People v. Milbourn. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the delayed application for leave to appeal, stating that it was not persuaded the question presented warranted review by the Court. Justices Levin and Cavanagh dissented, arguing that consecutive sentencing in such cases raised unresolved proportionality concerns that should be addressed.

criminal law

The case involved defendant John Michael Watroba's convictions on multiple counts of possession with intent to deliver cocaine. The Court of Appeals had reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by summarily denying the jury's request to review testimony in violation of MCR 6.414(H) and related precedent. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the issue could not be considered on appeal because there was no objection preserved in the trial court and the defendant had not shown prejudice under People v. Grant. The Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the defendant's remaining issues.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Todd Collins Tessin, who was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct under MCL 750.520b(1)(g) based on sexual penetration of a mentally incapacitated sixteen-year-old victim where personal injury was alleged through psychological harm. The Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' directive for an in-camera review of the victim's post-assault psychological counseling records. Under the precedent of People v. Stanaway, such a review requires the defendant to first establish a reasonable probability that the privileged records contain information material to the defense, a showing the court found absent here merely from the nature of the alleged injury. Leave to appeal was denied in all other respects.

criminal law