John D. Voelker

This case involved a divorce from bed and board in which the decree required the defendant husband to pay weekly support for his wife and three minor children, plus arrearages, and imposed a lien on his property. After the husband moved to Canada and failed to make payments, the plaintiff sought appointment of a receiver to collect his Detroit police pension checks to satisfy the support obligations. The defendant challenged the receiver's appointment on grounds of improper service, lack of jurisdiction, and a city charter provision exempting pensions from execution, garnishment, or other court orders, and also sought modification of the decree. The court affirmed the receiver's appointment and denial of modification, holding that the state's alimony enforcement statute takes precedence over the charter exemption when enforcing support orders for a spouse and children, and that the evidence supported the lower court's refusal to modify the decree.

family law

This case concerned a dispute over whether interest could be added to a workers' compensation award in favor of the minor children of a deceased employee. After an initial award was affirmed on appeal, the circuit court entered judgment and included interest starting from the date of the appeal board's order. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to award any interest because the workers' compensation statute neither provides for nor forbids it, and the court's role is limited to entering judgment to enforce the award as made without adding new terms. The Court reasoned that the entire proceeding is statutory, so rights and obligations must be determined strictly from the act's provisions, and any allowance of interest is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved an elderly pedestrian, Mary Smith, who was injured while crossing an intersection in Detroit and sued the driver and owner of a car for negligence, claiming the vehicle either struck her or caused her to fall by startling her during a left turn. The defendants denied negligence and argued the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by failing to observe properly while crossing. A jury returned a verdict of no cause of action for the defendants, and the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the jury instructions inadequately addressed contributory negligence and proximate cause and overemphasized her alleged negligence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the instructions as a whole fairly covered the relevant legal issues and that no grave error or manifest prejudice justified disturbing the jury's verdict.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved parents suing the driver of a car that struck their 9-year-old daughter as she crossed a busy Detroit street mid-block from behind a parked car, seeking damages for her injuries. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the child was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, given her intelligence, safety training, and failure to fully look for oncoming traffic before stepping out. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the child's actions presented no reasonable question of fact for a jury because she was aware of the dangers and her conduct necessarily contributed to the accident. The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs but concluded that her admitted failure to look left before taking the final step made contributory negligence a legal question rather than a factual one.

torts & liability

The case involved defendant Winkle, who was convicted after a bench trial of carrying a concealed weapon and possessing burglar tools, based on a loaded revolver, nitroglycerin, detonators, and various tools found in his car. Michigan State Police officers discovered the items during a warrantless search following a traffic stop for running a red light, and the trial court denied a motion to suppress the evidence. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the 1952 amendment to article 2, § 10 of the Michigan Constitution (1908) expressly allows admission of enumerated items like firearms and explosives seized outside the curtilage of a dwelling house, regardless of whether the search was reasonable or incident to a valid arrest. The decision followed the court's prior holding in People v. Gonzales that the amendment does not violate the U.S. Constitution, and the court found any potential error in admitting additional items non-prejudicial given the clearly admissible evidence.

criminal lawguns

The case involved a dispute over a contract for the sale of approximately 40 acres of land, where buyer Walter Frakes agreed to purchase the property from seller Paul Eghigian for $40,000, but the Eghigians repeatedly avoided scheduled closing meetings. The trial court found that the seller intentionally evaded the closings, that the buyer was ready, willing, and able to perform with funds available, and that a formal tender was unnecessary due to the seller's conduct amounting to repudiation; it also rejected claims that the land was partnership property. The court granted the buyer specific performance or, alternatively, damages of $30,000 after the seller failed to deliver clear title within a set period. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the decree, upholding the factual findings and the ruling that the seller's acts rendered tender unnecessary under precedents like Hanesworth v. Hendrickson.

property