The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) will hear oral arguments in 11 cases on Wednesday, March 1, beginning at 1 p.m.; and Thursday, March 2, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the Supreme Court courtroom on the 6th floor of the Michigan Hall of Justice, 925 W. Ottawa in Lansing on both days. Oral arguments will be livestreamed from the MSC website.
The notice of cases is posted on the Supreme Court’s oral arguments web page. Residents can follow the court on Twitter to receive regular updates as cases are heard.
The following brief accounts may not reflect the way that some or all of the court’s seven justices view the case. The attorneys may also disagree about the facts, issues, procedural history, and significance of this case. For further details, contact the attorneys.
Wednesday, March 1, 2023
Afternoon Session – 1 p.m.
163073
PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Linus Banghart-Linn)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Alpena - Mack, M)
TRAVIS MICHAEL JOHNSON, (attorney Angeles Meneses)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant pled guilty in one case and no contest in another. In addition to sentencing the defendant to prison, the trial court assessed $600 in court costs in each case, for a total of $1,200. The defendant moved to vacate these assessments, arguing that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) is facially unconstitutional because it impinges upon the due process right to an impartial jurist. The trial court rejected this argument and denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a 2-1 published opinion. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address “(1) whether MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) violates separation of powers by assigning the judicial branch “ ‘tasks that are more properly accomplished by [the Legislature],’ ” Mistretta v United States, 488 US 361, 383 (1989), quoting Morrison v Olson, 487 US 654, 680-681 (1988); see also Houseman v Kent Circuit Judge, 58 Mich 364, 367 (1885); (2) whether MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) violates due process by creating a “ ‘potential for bias’ ” or an “objective risk of actual bias,” Caperton v A T Massey Coal Co, Inc, 556 US 868, 881, 886 (2009), quoting Mayberry v Pennsylvania, 400 US 455, 465-466 (1971); see also, e.g., Williams v Pennsylvania, 579 US 1, 8-9 (2016); and (3) should we find MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) facially unconstitutional under either theory, what remedy follows.”
163942
PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Margaret Gillis Ayalp)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Wayne- Hathaway, M)
KELWIN DWAYNE EDWARDS, (attorney Michael Waldo)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant was found guilty by a jury of assault with intent to murder and felony-firearm. In addition to sentencing the defendant to prison, the trial court assessed $1,300 in court costs. The defendant appealed, arguing that the statute authorizing trial courts to assess convicted criminal defendants court costs, MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii), is unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address “(1) whether MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) violates separation of powers by assigning the judicial branch “ ‘tasks that are more properly accomplished by [the Legislature],’ ” Mistretta v United States, 488 US 361, 383 (1989), quoting Morrison v Olson, 487 US 654, 680-681 (1988); see also Houseman v Kent Circuit Judge, 58 Mich 364, 367 (1885); (2) whether MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) violates due process by creating a “ ‘potential for bias’ ” or an “objective risk of actual bias,” Caperton v A T Massey Coal Co, Inc, 556 US 868, 881, 886 (2009), quoting Mayberry v Pennsylvania, 400 US 455, 465-466 (1971); see also, e.g., Williams v Pennsylvania, 579 US 1, 8-9 (2016); and (3) should we find MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) facially unconstitutional under either theory, what remedy follows.
160469-71
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Emil Semaan)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Macomb CC - Toia, J.)
ANTHONY JOSEPH VEACH, (attorney Steven Helton)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant was convicted of seven counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct arising from charges in three separate cases that were consolidated for trial. A preliminary examination was held in each of the three cases. During each preliminary examination, the courtroom was closed to the public while the complainant testified. After the defendant was bound over for trial, the prosecutor filed a motion in the trial court to close the courtroom to the public during the complainant’s testimony at trial pursuant to MRE 611(a)(3) to protect her from harassment or undue embarrassment. The trial court granted the motion and closed the courtroom during the complainant’s testimony at trial. The defendant argued on appeal that the closure of the courtroom during trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether the Macomb Circuit Court relied on its pretrial courtroom closures or the defendant’s failure to object to those closures to justify closing the courtroom for the defendant’s trial and, if so, whether that reliance was erroneous; (2) whether the closure of the courtroom during the defendant’s trial was a partial or total courtroom closure and whether this issue affects the defendant’s claim of error; and (3) what remedy, if any, is available to the defendant, if constitutional or statutory error occurred.
161134
In re KAHLILIA Y. DAVIS, JUDGE 36th DISTRICT COURT
JTC Formal Complaint 101
Attorney for the JTC Mark Magyar
Attorney for Respondent Judge Michael Schwartz
On March 16, 2020, the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) filed a formal complaint making allegations of misconduct against Judge Kahlilia Y. Davis (respondent) of the 36th District Court. The JTC subsequently filed a petition for interim suspension and the Supreme Court suspended the respondent with pay on June 17, 2020. On March 23, 2022, the JTC filed an amended formal complaint making additional allegations of misconduct and requesting the appointment of a master. The Supreme Court appointed retired Court of Appeals Judge Cynthia D. Stephens as master. Following five days of hearings, the master issued her findings of fact and conclusions of law on August 1, 2022, making multiple findings of misconduct. After hearing objections to the master’s report, the JTC accepted and adopted the master’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the master’s findings of misconduct and determined that the respondent committed additional misconduct not found by the master. The JTC recommended the respondent’s removal from office and a conditional six-year suspension. The respondent filed a petition for review and the Supreme Court scheduled oral argument pursuant to MCR 9.251(G).
162327
PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Joshua Abbott)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Macomb - Toia, J.)
FRANK KING, (attorney Jacqueline McCann)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant, who was representing himself, pled no contest to first-degree home invasion and was sentenced to 6 to 30 years in prison. He appealed, arguing that he had not effectively waived counsel and was therefore deprived of his right to counsel during a critical stage of the proceedings. The Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s application for leave to appeal, but this Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the waiver-of-counsel issues. On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction in an unpublished opinion, despite its observation that the trial court failed to substantially comply with the waiver-of-counsel requirements in People v Anderson, 398 Mich 361 (1976), and MCR 6.005(D). The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the trial court’s failure to comply with the requirements of People v Anderson, 398 Mich 361 (1976), and MCR 6.005(D) did not warrant reversal; and (2) whether the standard of review for unpreserved constitutional errors set forth in People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 764 (1999), should apply where a criminal defendant argues on appeal that his waiver of counsel was invalid.
Thursday, March 2, 2023
Morning Session – 9:30 a.m.
164489
In re HOLBROOK, Minor.
Attorney for respondent-appellant: Cecilia Quirindongo Baunsoe
Attorney for petitioner-appellee: Louis Meizlish
LGAL for minor child: John Giancotti
The respondent’s 13-year-old son had a mental health history requiring treatment over a number of years. The respondent took him to a local hospital and he was then transferred to a mental health facility for inpatient treatment. After several weeks at the mental health facility, the child was transferred to a short-term crisis center to prepare for reintegration into the respondent’s home. The child threatened suicide if he was returned home with the respondent. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) asked the respondent to complete Community Mental Health (CMH) forms that would have resulted in the child’s return to the home, but the respondent did not fill out the CMH paperwork because she feared for her safety and the safety of her sons. Consequently, the DHHS filed a temporary custody petition asking the Oakland Family Court to take jurisdiction over the child under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and/or (2). Following a bench trial, the family court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish a statutory basis to exercise jurisdiction over the child pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1) on the basis that the respondent neglected or refused to provide proper medical care by failing to complete the CMH documentation. The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed on the basis of In re Hockett, Minor, ___ Mich App ___ (2021) (Docket No. 353132). The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether the Oakland Family Court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1) under the circumstances of this case; (2) whether In re Hockett, Minor ___ Mich App ___ (2021) (Docket No. 353132), was correctly decided; and (3) whether the family court should have assumed jurisdiction over the child pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(3)(A).
163110
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Katie Jorie)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v (Appeal from the Ct of Appeals)
(Genesee CC - Fullerton, J.)
DEMARIO DESHAWN BONDS, (attorney Rachel Wolfe)
Defendant-Appellant.
Following a jury trial in 2016, the defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and other offenses. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed and this Court denied the defendant’s application for leave to appeal. In 2018, the defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing, among other things, that he was denied his right to a speedy trial, insofar as 26 months elapsed between his arrest and his trial. The trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s application for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. On remand, the Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment, concluding that he failed to demonstrate prejudice. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether the 26-month delay between the defendant’s arrest and his trial violated the defendant’s speedy trial rights. People v Williams, 475 Mich 245 (2006); Barker v Wingo, 407 US 514, 532 (1972); and, if so, (2) whether defense counsel’s failure to raise a speedy trial violation claim on direct appeal constituted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and warrants relief from judgment.
162907
AHLAM KANDIL-EL SAYED, (attorney Tali Wendrow)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Wayne - Allen, D.)
F & E OIL, INC., (attorney Stephanie Arndt)
Defendant-Appellee.
The plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell at the defendant’s gas station. The plaintiff claims that the area between her car and the building’s entrance was covered with snow, and that ice underneath the snow caused her to fall. The defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that the snow and ice constituted an open and obvious condition with no special aspects. The plaintiff argued that because the condition was effectively unavoidable, the open and obvious doctrine did not apply. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether there was a question of fact concerning whether the parking lot constituted an effectively unavoidable condition; (2) whether Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512 (2001), is consistent with Michigan’s comparative negligence framework; and if not, (3) which approach this Court should adopt for analyzing premises liability cases under a comparative negligence framework.
163430
RENEE PINSKY and DAVID PINSKY, (attorney Steven Hicks)
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Washtenaw CC - Connors, T.)
KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Nancy Dembinski)
Defendant-Appellee.
The plaintiff tripped over a cable used to close off a checkout lane in one of the defendant’s stores and was injured as a result. The plaintiff and her husband filed a premises liability lawsuit. The defendant moved for summary disposition, but the trial court denied the motion on the basis that there are questions of fact whether the cable was open and obvious or an unreasonably dangerous condition. The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, reversed and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter summary disposition in the defendant’s favor. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether there is a question of fact concerning whether the cable used to close off the checkout lane was open and obvious; (2) whether there is a question of fact concerning whether the condition was unreasonably dangerous; (3) whether, under Estate of Livings v Sage’s Investment Group, LLC, 507 Mich 328 (2021), Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512 (2001), and 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 343A, the open and obvious doctrine does not preclude relief where a land possessor should anticipate the harm; and (4) whether liability should be precluded in Michigan even if the danger posed by a condition on land is open and obvious without special aspects as defined by Lugo, or whether the open and obvious nature of a condition should be a consideration for the jury in assessing the comparative fault of the parties as set forth in the Restatement Torts, 3d. The Court directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc (Docket No. 162907).
163702
JEFF BECKER, (attorney Mark Granzotto)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Macomb CC - Viviano, K.)
ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF DETROIT LLC, (attorney Christina Ginter)
Defendant-Appellee.
***Justice Viviano is not participating***
While walking behind the defendant’s building at night to get to his car, the plaintiff tripped over a raised section of the sidewalk. The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit, and the defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that the uneven sections of the sidewalk were open and obvious. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that minor height differentials in sidewalks are common and not unexpected, that the plaintiff was able to see at least to a degree, and that darkness alone does not render a condition hidden. The Court of Appeals further held that there is no factual dispute about whether the darkness would have prevented a reasonable person from seeing the uneven sidewalk, as the plaintiff testified that he never looked down as he was walking, and thus did not know whether the height disparity that he tripped on was visible upon casual inspection. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether the evidence, when viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether “an average person with ordinary intelligence would have discovered [the danger] upon casual inspection.” Hoffner v Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450, 461 (2012).
Thursday, March 2, 2023
Afternoon Session – 1 p.m.
164772
MICHAEL T. ANDARY, M.D., Conservator and Guardian of ELLEN M. ANDARY, LIP, RONALD KRUEGER, Guardian of PHILIP KRUEGER, LIP, and MORIAH, INC., doing business as EISENHOWER CENTER, (attorney Mark Granzotto)
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Ingham CC - Stokes, W)
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, (attorney Lori McAllister)
Defendants-Appellants.
The 2019 amendments to the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., specifically the amendments to MCL 500.3157, limit family-provided attendant care reimbursement and establish a fee schedule that caps reimbursement for non-Medicare compensable services. The plaintiffs argue that the amendments are unconstitutional and cannot be applied retroactively to claimants who were injured before the new law went into effect. The trial court granted the defendant insurers’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to state a claim). The Court of Appeals reversed in a 2-1 published opinion. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address whether the Court of Appeals erred when it: (1) held that claimants injured before the effective date of 2019 PA 21 are not subject to the limitations on benefits set forth in MCL 500.3157(7) and (10); (2) held that application of the amended statute to such claimants would violate the Contracts Clause of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 10; and (3) remanded the case to the circuit court for discovery to determine whether the no-fault amendments, even when applied only prospectively, pass constitutional muster.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
