Lawrence Lindemer

The case involved a defendant tried and convicted of assault with intent to commit murder after breaking into an estranged girlfriend's home and shooting her in 1972. The defendant raised an intoxication defense claiming he lacked specific intent due to alcohol and drugs along with amnesia, after initially exploring but abandoning an insanity defense; the prosecution's psychiatrist was permitted to testify on rebuttal about statements the defendant made during a court-ordered examination that contradicted his trial testimony on those points. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the psychiatrist's testimony was properly admitted as impeachment by prior inconsistent statements to test the truthfulness of the defendant's voluntary testimony, drawing on precedents like Harris v. New York even though the insanity defense was not pursued at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned an attempt by stepchildren to invalidate a 1969 deed that transferred a Michigan farm from Julia Merkiel to her second husband as tenants by the entireties, which would have passed the property outside her will; plaintiffs alleged the deed resulted from undue influence. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the defendant (the husband's estate), holding that the deed was valid. The court reasoned that while a presumption of undue influence arises when a confidential or fiduciary relationship exists, the beneficiary profits, and the fiduciary had opportunity to influence, this presumption affects only the burden of going forward with evidence and does not shift the ultimate burden of proof, which remains on the plaintiffs throughout; the trial judge properly found the presumption rebutted and no undue influence proven. The opinion also clarified related evidentiary standards for such claims.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Flint Dodge Company, the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident, could obtain indemnification from Gloria Martorelli, the driver who was test-driving the car at the time, after both were held liable to injured third parties under Michigan's owner liability statute. The trial court directed verdicts of liability against both defendants but allowed the jury to decide the indemnification cross-claim, resulting in a verdict for Martorelli; the judge then denied Flint Dodge's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the matter, noting that the driver's liability rested on negligence while the owner's was statutory and without personal fault, and discussed equitable indemnity principles along with policy factors such as mandatory insurance coverage in reaching its decision on appeal.

torts & liability

This case concerned a dispute between a union representing a probation officer and Recorder's Court judges over whether the officer's discharge must be reviewed through binding arbitration under the Public Employees Relations Act or follow the specific statutory removal process in MCLA 771.10. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed that the judges properly refused arbitration and that the statutory procedure controlled. The court reasoned that a specific statute prevails over a general one like PERA in the event of conflict, and that probation officers perform duties central to judicial functions, including presentence investigations and supervision, such that arbitration could undermine the courts' ability to maintain confidence in their officers. The statutory hearing process was deemed sufficient to protect the employee without requiring submission to a private arbitrator.

labor & employmentcriminal lawprocedure

The cases involve defendants Anderson and Overby who were convicted of armed robbery and related charges in Michigan courts and sought to represent themselves at trial after expressing dissatisfaction with their appointed counsel. The Michigan Supreme Court addressed the circumstances under which a defendant may waive counsel and proceed pro se, holding that such a request must be unequivocal and made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily after being informed of the risks. The Court affirmed Anderson's conviction because his request was conditional on receiving additional time to prepare and thus not unequivocal, but reversed Overby's conviction and remanded for a new trial because his request satisfied the requirements. The decision draws on state constitutional and statutory provisions as well as the U.S. Supreme Court's Faretta v. California ruling recognizing the implicit Sixth Amendment right to self-representation.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved defendant Cooper, who was acquitted in federal court on bank robbery charges under 18 USC 2113(a) after attempting to rob a bank using bombs, but was subsequently tried and convicted in Michigan state court on charges of attempted murder, bank robbery, and assault with intent to rob being armed. The Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether the state prosecution violated double jeopardy protections under the US and Michigan Constitutions, despite the doctrine of dual sovereignty recognized in Bartkus v. Illinois. The court held that the state charges were barred because the federal and state statutes protected substantially the same interests, with no distinct state interest shown to justify a successive prosecution. It further ruled that the defendant had not waived the double jeopardy claim by failing to raise it at trial, applying updated standards from Benton v. Maryland and People v. Grimmett. The attempted murder conviction had already been dismissed by the Court of Appeals.

criminal lawfederal powercivil rights

This case involved a dispute between Hi-Way Motor Company and International Harvester Company over a franchise agreement for selling trucks in the Alpena, Michigan area. Hi-Way alleged that it was fraudulently induced to enter the agreement by representations from International Harvester's agents that it would receive an exclusive dealership for heavy-duty trucks, but International Harvester later granted such a franchise to another dealer, prompting Hi-Way to terminate the agreement and sue for damages. The trial court found for Hi-Way on the fraud claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. The court held that the elements of actionable fraud were not established because there was no clear and convincing evidence that the agents made promises with no intention of performing them at the time, and a later letter could not be used to prove fraudulent intent due to its remoteness in time. The court further noted that the parties were sophisticated commercial entities without a fiduciary relationship, and broken promises of future action alone do not constitute fraud under Michigan law.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved the conviction of defendant Smyers for conspiracy to commit burglary and to receive or conceal stolen goods, based on a series of burglaries in Genesee County. Smyers argued that as a paid FBI informant, he could not be a coconspirator because he only feigned participation. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that whether Smyers was a genuine participant or merely an informant was a factual question properly submitted to the jury, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of his complicity. The court also upheld the admission of evidence seized under a valid search warrant and rejected other claims of error regarding evidence and prosecutorial remarks.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Garcia's conviction for first-degree murder after his wife and another man were shot to death in a factory parking lot in 1969. Garcia appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to support the verdict, that the trial court erred in denying a directed verdict of acquittal, and that voluntary intoxication should have negated the specific intent required for first-degree murder, along with related claims about diminished capacity and inadequate findings by the trial judge. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that circumstantial evidence—including threats, possession of the getaway car, timing of sightings, and ballistics—was sufficient for the trier of fact to find guilt. The court further reasoned that Michigan law does not recognize voluntary intoxication as a defense to first-degree murder when the requisite malice and intent are present, and that the trial court's findings adequately addressed the elements of the crime.

criminal law

In People v. Rand, the defendant was charged with armed robbery and assault with intent to commit murder, and the jury circled lesser included offenses on the verdict form—assault to commit robbery while armed and assault to do great bodily harm less than murder—which omitted explicit mention of the intent element. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, concluding that the verdicts could support only simple assault because they failed to state the intent. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed that decision and reinstated the convictions, holding that a jury verdict is not void for uncertainty if its meaning can be clearly deduced from the pleadings, the court's charge, and the entire record, including the verdict forms, oral pronouncements, and jury instructions that addressed the intent requirements.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether DeWitt Township timely appealed Clinton County's intracounty property tax equalization after the State Tax Commission imposed an intercounty factor of 1.10 that was spread back to the township, raising its factor from 1.0. The court decided that the township's appeal was timely under the statute and that the process as applied violated due process and equal protection. The core reasoning was that the county's application of the STC factor created a new equalization triggering the appeal period, and forcing the township to appeal within five days of the initial county action or to challenge assessments of other units would impose an unreasonable burden contrary to Supreme Court precedent on tax discrimination.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case involved Michigan consumers who sued Firestone Tire & Rubber Company and Ned's Auto Supply, alleging they were improperly charged sales tax on automotive services such as wheel rotations and balances that involved little or no transfer of tangible personal property. The plaintiffs sought to recover the taxes paid and argued that retailers could not shift the economic burden of the tax or related penalties to consumers for non-taxable services. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Michigan Supreme Court agreed that dismissal was proper, holding that the sales tax is imposed directly on retailers under the General Sales Tax Act, which permits them to pass the tax on to consumers while requiring separate accounting to avoid a penalty on gross proceeds. The Court reasoned that the statutory scheme distinguishes between the legal incidence of the tax and its economic burden but does not authorize passing penalties to consumers.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved the conviction of defendant Hall for felony murder in the robbery and beating death of Albert Hoffman. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the mandatory life sentence. The court reasoned that the defendant's forced participation in a lineup did not violate search and seizure rights, that the identification evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict, that retrial after a hung jury did not constitute double jeopardy when the jury was unable to agree, and that the mandatory life sentence for felony murder did not violate constitutional protections against cruel or unusual punishment or due process.

criminal law

This case was a class action by former employees and the widow of a deceased employee seeking vested pension benefits from a retirement plan established by their employer, Cadillac Overall Supply Co. The plan included a forfeiture clause that terminated benefits if a participant worked for a competitor, as determined by the advisory committee. Plaintiffs argued the clause violated Michigan's statute (MCLA 445.761) declaring agreements not to engage in employment void as against public policy, and moved for summary judgment on liability. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, holding that the clause was enforceable because it did not prohibit competitive employment but only conditioned continued benefits on refraining from it. The court followed precedent in Couch v. Difco Laboratories, Inc., noting that any broader prohibition on such forfeiture provisions was a matter for the legislature.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In People v. Carroll, defendants were convicted by a jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny after being arrested without a warrant based on a police radio bulletin describing a vehicle and occupants linked to an attempted theft of snowmobiles. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the claim regarding allegedly illegal arrest and resulting testimony was not preserved for appeal because no timely objection or motion to suppress was made at trial. On the second issue, the court held that conducting inquiries in chambers about possible jury tainting without the defendants present but with their counsel in attendance did not violate defendants' rights, as counsel could exercise the relevant privileges on their behalf. The majority distinguished prior precedent and found no reversible error, while a dissent argued that the constitutional and statutory right to personal presence was infringed without valid waiver.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a property owner who sued the City of Roseville after his requests to rezone two parcels from single-family to multifamily residential use were denied by the planning commission and city council; he sought an injunction to prevent the city from interfering with his proposed use. Neighboring property owners within 300 feet petitioned to intervene as of right in the lawsuit under GCR 1963, 209.1(3), but the trial court denied the motion, finding inadequate grounds, and the Court of Appeals declined review. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the neighbors qualified for intervention because they satisfied the rule's three requirements: timely application, possible inadequacy of representation by existing parties, and the possibility of being bound by the judgment. The court interpreted the "bound" element broadly to include practical effects on the applicants' interests rather than limiting it to strict res judicata, drawing guidance from federal precedents and similar state decisions on zoning interventions.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a taxpayer's claim for a refund of Michigan state income taxes on a lump-sum distribution received in 1968 from an employee profit-sharing trust, asserting that most of the amount qualified for exclusion under §271 of the state income tax act as an asset acquired before the tax's effective date. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and circuit court decisions that had upheld the Treasury's disallowance of the exclusion. It held that the taxpayer's interest became fully vested prior to October 1, 1967, through ratable annual vesting of 4% per year of service, making it an acquired asset whose pre-tax portion could be excluded upon disposition. The court directed a recomputation of taxable income by allocating gains based on the vesting timeline and excluding employer contributions and related appreciation after the cutoff date.

taxes

This case concerned whether Helen M. Hund validly exercised a testamentary power of appointment over the corpus of a marital trust established in her late husband's will through the general residuary clause in her own 1955 will. The probate court, circuit court, and Court of Appeals all held that she had exercised the power, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. The court applied the statute in effect at Mrs. Hund's death, MCLA 556.114, which presumes exercise of a power by general residuary language unless a contrary intent appears expressly or by necessary implication, and examined the circumstances of the will's drafting—including the prior statutory presumption and the overall estate plan—to conclude that her intent to exercise the power was clear. The dispute pitted Mr. Hund's residuary beneficiaries against Mrs. Hund's, with the latter prevailing.

family lawproperty

The case concerned workers' compensation claims for silicosis, a dust disease, in which plaintiffs sought benefits exceeding the former $10,500 aggregate limit after their dates of disablement fell after May 1, 1966, even though their last day of work preceded that date. The court held that the limit does not apply to such claims and that the term "date of personal injury" in Part VII, § 4(a) refers to the date of disablement under Part VII, § 2, reversing the WCAB and Court of Appeals on the limitation issue while affirming on the separate question of crediting benefits from a prior unrelated injury. The reasoning rested on the statutory text and definitions enacted in 1937 and 1965, legislative history eliminating the cap for later injuries, and the distinction drawn in Joslin v. Campbell between disablement and last day worked. The court noted that any change to address resulting disparities in benefits must come from the Legislature.

labor & employment

The case involved a defendant convicted by a jury of prison escape under Michigan law, whose sole defense at trial was that he fled due to duress from threats of forcible homosexual attack by other inmates. The trial court instructed the jury that fleeing to avoid such attacks was not a defense, while also defining duress as requiring present, imminent, and impending compulsion inducing a well-founded fear of death or serious bodily harm. The Michigan Supreme Court held that this instruction was reversibly erroneous because it precluded the jury from considering the specific duress claim offered, and it affirmed the Court of Appeals reversal of the conviction. The court outlined four elements a defendant must raise to support a duress defense and noted that evidence on factors like immediate reporting after reaching safety would be relevant to those elements.

criminal law