James Leo Ryan

The case concerned whether workers’ compensation benefits for an injury sustained during a summer truck-driving job should be offset by the claimant’s earnings from his regular full-time job as a schoolteacher under MCL 418.371(1). The plaintiff had worked the two positions in successive seasonal periods for years and continued teaching without significant impact from the injury. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board applied the offset on the ground that the employments were successive rather than concurrent, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Board’s decision, holding that the statutory setoff applied because the claimant’s pattern of alternate employment meant the injury caused no net loss of wage-earning capacity once teaching earnings were considered.

labor & employment

In People v. Payne, the defendant faced charges of unlawfully driving away automobiles and receiving and concealing stolen property, and moved to suppress evidence obtained from his parents' home under a search warrant issued by a district court magistrate who also held the position of deputy sheriff. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the warrant was invalid, reversing the Court of Appeals and agreeing with the circuit court's suppression of the evidence. The core reasoning was that the Fourth Amendment requires warrants to be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, and the magistrate's ongoing affiliation with law enforcement, even without active involvement in investigations or any shown personal bias, fails to satisfy the necessary appearance of impartiality.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Prieskorn, the Michigan Supreme Court considered whether a defendant convicted of marijuana delivery was entitled to sentence credit under MCL 769.11b for time spent serving a sentence on an unrelated driving offense while out on bond for the drug charges. The defendant had been arrested for two initial delivery counts, released on bond, then arrested and sentenced to 90 days for driving with a revoked license; during that incarceration he faced a third delivery charge and later pleaded guilty to one original count. The trial court awarded some presentence credit, the Court of Appeals added more including time after the third charge, and the Supreme Court reversed to deny credit for the period of incarceration under the unrelated sentence. The court held that the statute grants credit only for time served because the defendant was denied or unable to furnish bond for the specific offense of conviction, not for confinement resulting from a separate conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

In these consolidated cases, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed challenges to first-degree criminal sexual conduct convictions of defendants Petrella and Simpson, which were elevated from third-degree based on evidence of 'mental anguish' as a form of personal injury under MCL 750.520a(j). The court considered whether the term 'mental anguish' was unconstitutionally vague, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the convictions, the validity of a related criminal jury instruction, and a spousal privilege issue in Simpson. It held that the statutory scheme is constitutional, defined 'mental anguish' as extreme or excruciating pain, distress, or suffering of the mind, found the evidence sufficient in Petrella but insufficient in Simpson, and disapproved the jury instruction defining the term. The court did not reach the spousal privilege question because the mental anguish evidence was inadequate to support Simpson's conviction.

criminal law

In People v. Meyer, the defendant was charged with cocaine possession after an undercover Kalamazoo police officer purchased the substance from him in the City of Parchment. The trial court dismissed the case sua sponte, ruling that the officer acted outside his bailiwick without local cooperation in violation of MCL 764.2a, which tainted the proceedings with illegality; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that while the statute restricts an officer's authority and may expose the officer to personal liability, it does not require or authorize dismissal of the criminal prosecution itself. The Court reasoned that the statutory violation affects only the officer's lawful performance of duties and does not invalidate the underlying evidence or charges brought against the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant David Allen's conviction for first-degree felony murder in the killing of Minnie Ingram, where the prosecution improperly elicited testimony from cofelon Jesse Salinas that he had been convicted of the same crime. The Michigan Supreme Court held that while the admission of Salinas' conviction was error under prior precedent, it did not require reversal because it did not unfairly prejudice Allen. The court reasoned that defense counsel's cross-examination highlighted Salinas' motive to lie, the trial court gave repeated limiting instructions on the conviction's use for credibility only, and independent evidence of Allen's guilt—including his own statements to witnesses, blood evidence on his shoe matching the victim, and pathologist testimony—was overwhelming. A dissenting opinion argued the error was prejudicial given the importance of Salinas' testimony. The Court of Appeals judgment was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and seize defendant Askia Khalil Shabaz after observing him exit an apartment building in a high-crime area, stuff a paper bag into his clothing, and then flee when their unmarked car slowed nearby, leading to recovery of a concealed revolver from a discarded bag. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress the gun and dismissed the concealed-weapons charge under MCL 750.227, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the ruling on the prosecutor's appeal. The court examined the facts under Fourth Amendment Terry-stop standards, noting the officers lacked any specific reports of crime involving the defendant, that the paper bag was consistent with innocent activity like grocery shopping, and that flight alone in these circumstances did not elevate mere suspicion to the required level for a lawful detention and seizure.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case arose from a civil lawsuit involving assault and battery and dram shop claims after a 1980 incident in Michigan, where the plaintiff obtained a verdict against two defendants. The key issue on appeal concerned the trial court's refusal to give a requested Standard Jury Instruction (SJI 2d 5.03) on impeaching witnesses with prior convictions, which the Court of Appeals had held required automatic reversal under the Javis rule. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, overruling the automatic-reversal presumption in Javis and adopting instead a harmless-error standard under which an instructional error warrants reversal only if it affirmatively appears to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice after review of the entire record. The Court relied on longstanding Michigan statutes requiring prejudice to be shown before setting aside a verdict for misdirection of the jury.

proceduretorts & liability

In Moody v. Pulte Homes, Inc., a construction worker sued the general contractor and a subcontractor for personal injuries after his hand was caught in a bulldozer's fan belt and pulley while helping start the machine at a residential site, alleging negligence, vicarious liability, and breach of a third-party beneficiary contract. The trial court directed a verdict for the general contractor on the contract claim, the jury returned a no-cause verdict on the remaining claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by declining to announce its jury-instruction rulings before closing arguments, that the instructions given fairly presented the material substance of the plaintiffs' theories, and that the refusal to give certain requested instructions was not reversible error given the limited evidence of the general contractor's direct negligence and other record considerations.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether Detroit Hilton Ltd. Partnership remained liable under Michigan's Sales and Use Tax Acts for unpaid taxes incurred by Detroit Hotel Operating Company (DHOC) after Hilton transferred its hotel business and assets to DHOC in 1974. Although Hilton did not file a required "final" tax return upon the transfer and DHOC continued filing returns under Hilton's license and name without paying the taxes due from May to October 1975, the Michigan Supreme Court held that Hilton was not liable. The court reasoned that tax liability arises from engaging in taxable business activities, not from mere failure to comply with licensing or filing procedures, and that the Department of Treasury failed to prove the elements of equitable estoppel because it did not show Hilton had knowledge of DHOC's improper filings. The Court of Appeals decision was reversed.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved the defendant's conviction for first-degree premeditated murder of his elderly neighbor after evidence showed the victim died from a stab wound, her car and other items were missing, and the defendant was seen driving the car while making incriminating statements. The Court of Appeals reduced the conviction to second-degree murder on the ground that the corpus delicti rule required independent proof of premeditation and deliberation before admitting the defendant's confession. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the corpus delicti rule in homicide cases is satisfied by evidence, independent of any confession, that the named victim is dead as a result of criminal agency. The Court therefore held that the confession was admissible to prove the elements of premeditation and deliberation, and the first-degree conviction could stand.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a 1969 airplane crash in which passengers sued Piper Aircraft (on a products liability theory for defective design), the pilot Logan, and the aircraft owners Berz (under Michigan's aircraft owners statute imposing vicarious liability). A joint and several judgment was entered against all defendants, and after Piper paid more than its pro rata share, it sued Logan and Berz for contribution under MCL 600.2925. The trial court granted summary judgment to Berz on the ground that its vicarious liability did not make it a joint tortfeasor, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the contribution statute applies to persons who are jointly or severally liable for the same injury, including those held vicariously liable by statute, and thus Piper could recover from Berz amounts paid above its pro rata share.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved defendant Tyrone Hardin, who was charged with assault with intent to murder, felony-firearm, and carrying a concealed weapon after a police chase and shooting incident. The jury, after deliberating over several days and receiving multiple supplemental instructions when deadlocked, convicted him of lesser offenses. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, finding the instructions substantially departed from the ABA standard 5.4 adopted in People v. Sullivan. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the instructions given did not constitute a substantial departure from the ABA standard, as they properly encouraged deliberation without coercion or unreasonable time demands, and reinstated the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved three retired Saginaw firefighters eligible for both duty disability pensions under the city's Policemen and Firemen Retirement System ordinance and workers' compensation benefits, who challenged the city's practice of fully offsetting the workers' compensation payments against their pension amounts after they reached age 55. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the offset provision in § 129.1 of the pension ordinance does not apply to over-55 duty disability retirees and that § 161 of the Workers' Disability Compensation Act, allowing waiver of benefits for like municipal benefits, is inapplicable because the pension plan was created by ordinance rather than charter. The core reasoning was based on rules of statutory construction applied to the ordinance's distinct provisions for different categories of retirees, supported by the precedent in Vasser v. Muskegon.

labor & employment

This case concerned Michigan auto workers laid off from General Motors plants due to local strikes at GM facilities who sought unemployment benefits after their union had raised strike-fund dues during 1967 national contract talks. The court examined whether the workers were disqualified under state law for "financing" the labor dispute by paying the increased dues and whether that disqualification violated the Supremacy Clause by conflicting with the NLRA or infringed First Amendment associational rights. The reasoning reviewed the facts of the UAW special convention's dues amendment, the collection of emergency dues even after strikes at Ford and Caterpillar ended, the payment of strike benefits to foundry strikers, and federal legislative history on state unemployment laws during labor disputes.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case concerns whether 23 Michigan cities could obtain a money judgment reimbursing them for overtime wages paid to firefighters under the 1978 amendment to the Minimum Wage Law of 1964, which required such payments after 216 hours in a 28-day period and directed the Legislature to annually appropriate funds covering the added costs to local governments. The Court of Claims issued a declaratory ruling that the state must reimburse the cities but denied a monetary judgment on jurisdictional grounds, likening it to an improper mandamus action. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a money judgment could be entered and satisfied from existing Court of Claims appropriations. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that a money judgment is permissible because it does not compel future legislative appropriations or violate constitutional budgeting rules, distinguishing it from prior precedent, and remanded for calculation of the award.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved nine property owners who petitioned the Michigan Tax Tribunal challenging a special assessment by the City of Westland for street paving, arguing that the assessment was unconstitutional as it did not enhance their property values. The petition was filed 195 days after the final confirmation of the assessment rolls, well beyond the 30-day deadline under MCL 205.735(2). The Tax Tribunal dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction due to the untimely filing, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the statutory 30-day limit applied to bar the claim, even one with constitutional dimensions, because the plaintiffs identified no alternative longer limitations period in the city charter or ordinances. The court therefore affirmed the dismissal.

propertyproceduretaxes

The case concerned landowners Patrick and Michael Eyde who challenged the establishment of the Remy-Chandler Drainage District, the apportionment of drain costs among municipalities, and the validity of special assessments imposed by Lansing Township on their property to fund the project, along with constitutional challenges to sections 536 and 539 of the Drain Code. The Michigan Supreme Court addressed jurisdictional issues, holding that challenges to the special assessments fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Tribunal under precedent from Wikman v. Novi, while constitutional challenges to the Drain Code provisions remained properly before the circuit court since the Tax Tribunal lacks authority to invalidate statutes. The Court reasoned that the circuit court correctly granted accelerated or summary judgment on the non-constitutional portions of the complaint based on these jurisdictional lines and that questions of law regarding constitutionality could be resolved on summary judgment without factual disputes.

propertytaxesprocedure

The case involved automobile dealerships challenging tax deficiencies assessed by the Michigan Department of Treasury under the Single Business Tax Act, specifically whether payments received from financial institutions upon assignment of customer financing agreements constituted excludable "interest" income. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Tribunal and Court of Appeals decisions, holding that the payments were not interest and thus properly included in the dealerships' single business tax base. The court reasoned that the nature of the payments in the context of dealer financing arrangements did not qualify them as interest under the statute, rejecting the dealers' characterizations of the funds as interest income.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Dearborn residents and taxpayers who filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for an order of superintending control over the Tax Tribunal, alleging that state equalization of property values resulted in their assessments exceeding 50% of true cash value, in violation of the Michigan Constitution. They discovered this after receiving final tax bills in July 1981, past the deadline for appealing to the local board of review, and the Tax Tribunal routinely rejected related late petitions. The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint in a one-sentence order. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiffs could maintain the action for superintending control as a procedural matter and remanded for plenary consideration. The core reasoning focused on the statutory property tax and equalization scheme, which does not remedy unequal assessments within a single class in one taxing district, and the availability of superintending control to challenge the constitutionality of statutes affecting appeal rights.

taxespropertyprocedure