Theodore Souris

This case involves a wrongful death action brought by the administratrix of John C. Jordan's estate against C. A. Roberts Company, alleging that Jordan was an independent contractor fatally injured while working for the defendant. The defendant sought accelerated judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Michigan workmen's compensation act because Jordan's widow had previously redeemed a compensation claim based on his status as an employee. On rehearing, the court affirmed the accelerated judgment for the defendant, holding that the workmen's compensation appeal board's unappealed determination that Jordan was an employee was binding and precluded relitigation of his status in this separate proceeding by the estate. The majority reasoned that once the board found employee status, the statutory bar applied regardless of the different parties involved, and there was no remaining factual dispute to resolve at trial.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In Kwaiser v. Peters, a civil action against a tavern owner, the plaintiff moved for a new trial after a defense verdict, claiming a juror improperly associated with the defendant and counsel right after the verdict and had given false answers on the required juror personal history questionnaire about prior traffic convictions. The trial court denied the motion, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and a majority of the Michigan Supreme Court also affirmed. The court held that a new trial is not warranted absent affirmative proof of prejudice from the post-verdict contact or proof that the false questionnaire answers caused a miscarriage of justice or prevented an impartial jury, applying precedents requiring such a showing even in criminal cases and for post-verdict conduct in civil cases.

procedurecivil rights

The case involved a dispute between Union Township and the City of Mount Pleasant over whether the city needed the township's permission to construct a second water pipeline along a county road right-of-way within the township. The Michigan Supreme Court held that Article 7, Section 29 of the state constitution requires the consent of the township, in addition to the county, for a public utility to use township highways or public places. The court reasoned that while the McNitt Act transferred road maintenance responsibilities to counties, it did not eliminate the township's regulatory authority over the use of its roads by utilities, as supported by pre-existing statutes requiring township consent.

business & regulatoryproperty

In People v. Younger, the defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder after killing his wife upon unexpectedly finding her with male company late at night, and he appealed on grounds that he should have been permitted to introduce more evidence of her prior infidelity to support a provocation defense reducing the charge to manslaughter, along with related jury instructions. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant's own actions—such as greeting the guests, going to the basement to retrieve and load a rifle, directing his wife to pray on her knees for several minutes, and then shooting her multiple times—demonstrated deliberation rather than a heat-of-passion killing, so no manslaughter instruction was warranted. The court also rejected claims of error regarding prolonged jury deliberations and the prosecutor's closing arguments because no objections were made at trial, though it suggested better practices for future cases.

criminal lawprocedure

In this wrongful death case, the plaintiff, as special administratrix of the estate of Clifford Ray Dutton, sued Wayne County for negligence after Dutton died when his car drove off the end of a county road into an obstacle on private property. The complaint alleged the county failed to post warning signs or erect a barricade at the road's end, despite knowing of the hazard. The trial court granted the county's motion for summary judgment for failure to state a claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that the county had no statutory duty to erect signs under its discretionary authority. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the pleaded claims of failure to consider or install traffic control devices and a barricade were legally sufficient to survive dismissal because they could breach the county's duty under CLS 1961, § 224.21 to keep roads reasonably safe and convenient for travel, and nonexercise of discretion is not automatically immune from review.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case was a medical malpractice action brought by a patient against an osteopath for negligently cutting her ureter during surgery to remove an ovary, followed by complications from the repair. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant after excluding certain expert testimony from an allopathic physician and limiting cross-examination of an assisting osteopath; the Court of Appeals reversed for a new trial on the cross-examination issue. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, ruling that the plaintiff had made a sufficient showing to cross-examine the assisting physician under the relevant statute and that the trial court had improperly restricted that examination, while also addressing the standards for admitting opinion testimony from physicians of different medical schools when procedures overlap.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

In this eminent domain case, the Michigan State Highway Commissioner sought to condemn and remove sand, gravel, rock, and earth from 12.5 acres of the Hahns' private farm for highway construction under a statute authorizing such takings, after the parties could not agree on compensation. The trial court awarded the owners payment based on the value of the minerals taken in place plus compensation for temporary land occupancy, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave and affirmed, holding that when the right to remove minerals is condemned, compensation must be determined by the value of those minerals as they lie in the ground rather than solely by any reduction in the overall land's value before and after the taking. The Court expressly adopted the reasoning from its prior decision in State Highway Commissioner v. Fegin on this valuation method, while noting no dispute was raised here regarding the separate award for temporary occupancy.

property

The case involved claims for damages from a rear-end car collision caused by an 18-year-old driver, with plaintiffs seeking recovery from the driver's father on the theory that he negligently permitted his incompetent son to drive. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's summary judgments dismissing the claims against the father, which had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The majority held that the complaints adequately stated causes of action under common-law rules imposing a duty on parents to exercise reasonable care in controlling minor children to prevent unreasonable risks of harm to others, drawing on Restatement of Torts provisions and related authorities on negligent entrustment. A dissent argued that the facts did not support liability given the son's age, license, and co-ownership of the vehicle.

torts & liabilityfamily law

The case concerned whether plaintiffs could vacate Portage Lake drive, a road dedicated for public use in a plat recorded in 1901, based on the county's alleged failure to accept the dedication. After an initial remand for further evidence on acceptance, the circuit court granted the vacation, and the defendants appealed. The court held that acceptance requires either formal action by public authority or informal acceptance through public use or expenditure of public funds on repair and maintenance. It found no written records of formal acceptance or expenditures, insufficient evidence of general public use, and conflicting testimony on maintenance that supported the trial court's finding of no acceptance by the county. The judgment vacating the road was therefore affirmed.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a taxicab driver's claim for unemployment compensation benefits after his operator's license was suspended for 90 days due to accumulated points, preventing him from continuing his work; his employer indicated he could return once the license was restored. The employment security commission appeal board disqualified him from benefits under the employment security act on the ground that he had voluntarily left his work without good cause attributable to the employer, a decision affirmed by the circuit court and Court of Appeals. The majority of the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, holding that the loss of a prerequisite for employment through the claimant's own negligence amounted to a voluntary leaving. The dissent argued that the appeal board had improperly applied the rejected doctrine of constructive voluntary leaving and that the record did not support a finding of voluntary action by the claimant.

labor & employment

The case involved Willie Moore, who after his 1938 first-degree murder conviction and life sentence were invalidated by the US Supreme Court for lack of counsel, was retried in 1958 and sentenced to 25-40 years for second-degree murder. Moore petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the parole board to assume jurisdiction over him by crediting the nearly 20 years he served under the invalid sentence, including good-time allowances earned, toward parole eligibility under the new indeterminate sentence. The Michigan Supreme Court held that Moore qualified as a "convict" under the good-time statute during his prior incarceration, entitling him to credit for good behavior allowances earned then for purposes of parole consideration, and ordered mandamus to issue accordingly. The core reasoning was that the statute's policy of incentivizing good behavior applied to time served under erroneous convictions, with the court interpreting "may" in the pre-1965 version to require such credits in this context without conflicting with constitutional limits on sentencing reductions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the limits of uninsured motorist coverage in two auto insurance policies after the plaintiff's minor son was injured by an uninsured driver in 1963. Each policy provided a $10,000 limit per person but contained identical "Other Insurance" clauses addressing overlapping coverage. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the combined maximum coverage available was $10,000, with each insurer liable for only half of that amount on a pro rata basis. The court reasoned that the policy language first required capping damages at the higher of the two stated limits before allocating shares between the insurers, rather than adding the limits together as the plaintiff contended, and it reversed the circuit court's contrary declaratory judgment.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff who sued a city for injuries sustained in a 1963 automobile collision with a vehicle that was illegally parked on a city street, claiming the city had notice of the obstruction but negligently failed to remove it or provide warnings. The trial court dismissed the suit against the city because the plaintiff did not provide the required written notice within 60 days of the injury under the applicable 1909 statute, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the statute's history and prior decisions, concluding that it imposed municipal liability for negligent failure to address street obstructions after notice but that compliance with the notice provision was mandatory. The court held that the plaintiff's failure to meet this procedural requirement barred her claim, even after the abrogation of common-law municipal immunity, and affirmed the dismissal.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by plaintiff Magreta, who suffered work-related injuries when steel fell on him, crushing his right foot (leading to staged amputations) and partially severing his left great toe. The court addressed three issues under the workmen's compensation act: whether cumulative specific loss awards were available for loss of a leg and the foot on that same leg, whether an award was due for partial loss of the toe, and whether such awards were subject to statutory maximum and minimum benefit limits based on the number of dependents. The court held that the plaintiff suffered only one specific loss (the leg) despite the two-stage amputation, awarded benefits for loss of half the great toe, and adjusted the payments to account for the stipulated decrease in dependents. The core reasoning rested on the act's definitions of amputation levels, its provision that specific losses presume disability for a fixed period without further proof of incapacity, and the need to avoid absurd results in construing the statute.

labor & employment

The case involved an appeal from a contempt conviction against appellant Colacasides for refusing to testify before a one-man grand jury in Wayne County, Michigan, after being granted immunity from prosecution regarding answers about entries in "little black books" allegedly showing bribe payments to police officers. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the grand jury proceeding presided over by Judge Bowles was not an improper extension of a prior grand jury, that the immunity granted was coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and that the one-man grand jury statute did not violate separation of powers under the state constitution or due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that the statute permits transfers of records between successive grand juries and that the immunity adequately protected the witness from subsequent prosecution based on his testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over real and personal property leases, deeds, bills of sale, and assignments between Ferd L. Alpert Industries and Oakland Metal Stamping Co., where the original complaint for breach of leases was withdrawn and the case proceeded on the defendant's counterclaim seeking rescission or cancellation of the instruments or, alternatively, their treatment as an equitable mortgage, plus damages for ouster from possession. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim for failure to state a cause of action immediately after the opening statement, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed and remanded, reasoning that an exception to the parol evidence rule permits evidence to show a conveyance absolute on its face was intended as a mortgage, that fraud or mistake is not required for such a claim, and that equity intervenes to prevent abuse of the debtor-creditor relationship even without those elements.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Leonard against his last employer, Lans Corporation, for disability from an occupational disease that arose before the March 1963 effective date of a 1962 statutory amendment. The amendment added a procedure for joining prior employers as parties and apportioning liability among them after the Michigan Supreme Court had invalidated the prior apportionment process on due process grounds. The appeal board refused to apply the new apportionment provisions retroactively to pre-amendment claims and denied apportionment, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. A majority of the Supreme Court held that the amendment created only a procedural mechanism for enforcing preexisting liability rather than new substantive obligations, and therefore could apply to claims not yet finally adjudicated, reversing the board and remanding for apportionment proceedings.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a widow's claim for accidental death benefits under two insurance policies issued by Travelers Insurance Co. on her late husband, who died following an automobile accident. The insurer denied coverage, asserting that the death resulted at least partly from preexisting arteriosclerotic heart disease rather than solely from the accident. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled for the insurer, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the policies' exclusionary clauses, which expressly barred coverage for death caused directly or indirectly by disease, precluded recovery even if an accident contributed, distinguishing this from cases involving only sole-cause clauses where the accident could be deemed the proximate cause.

business & regulatory

In People v. Parshay, the defendant was convicted of armed robbery in 1963 on a guilty plea after the trial judge advised him of his rights to a jury trial and counsel but did not give him an opportunity to request counsel or retain one before accepting the plea. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court held that absent record proof of an offer and waiver of counsel, the defendant was denied his right to assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and parallel provisions of the Michigan Constitution, as well as under Michigan court rules requiring such protections in felony cases. The decision relied on Gideon v. Wainwright and its retroactive application, noting that the conviction occurred on the same day Gideon was decided.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved General Motors employees in Flint, Michigan, who sought unemployment compensation benefits after being laid off due to a strike at a GM plant in Mansfield, Ohio. The Employment Security Commission initially granted benefits, but a circuit court reversed that decision based on a collective bargaining agreement provision treating strikes at one location as affecting others, and GM argued the dispute had become national in scope. On rehearing, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the circuit court and reinstated the benefits, holding that the Mansfield strike remained a local labor dispute not involving the claimants' establishments and that the agreement provision could not override statutory disqualification rules under the employment security act. The court relied on factual findings by the appeal board that the dispute concerned only local working conditions and did not extend to wages, hours, or conditions at the Flint plants.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory