What

Where

Trusted Across Michigan

2,500

+

Verified Listings

Built for Clients & Attorneys

Every Practice Area

Your Search Starts Here:
Michigan Top Lawyers makes it simple to find the right attorney.

Our Top Rated Lawyers

Popular Exclusive Listings In Our Directory

The Elder Care Firm

The Elder Care Firm

Be the first one to rate!

860 W Grand River Ave

Practice Areas : Elder Law

Seva Law Firm

Be the first one to rate!

1050 Wilshire Suite 335 Troy, MI 48084

Practice Areas : Insurance

Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C.

Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C.

Be the first one to rate!

101 West Big Beaver Road 10th Floor Columbia Center Troy, Michigan 48084

Practice Areas : Commercial Real Estate

Freel Professional Corp

Freel Professional Corp

Be the first one to rate!

540 West Lake St., Suite 2 Tawas City, MI 48763

Practice Areas : Admiralty and Maritime Law

Davis Law Group PLLC

Davis Law Group PLLC

Be the first one to rate!

27600 Northwestern Hwy Ste 215 Southfield, MI 48034

Practice Areas : Criminal Law

Kathryn Wayne-Spindler & Associates

Kathryn Wayne-Spindler & Associates

Be the first one to rate!

425 West Huron Street, Suite 120 Milford, MI 48381

Practice Areas : Criminal Law

How it Works

It’s easy to find and book a lawyer and also to share your experience.

Find Your Lawyer

Find Your Lawyer

Explore top Michigan lawyers by city, practice area, and reviews.

Contact a Lawyer

Contact a Lawyer

Connect with trusted Michigan attorneys for fast, reliable help.

Review A Lawyer

Review A Lawyer

Rate Michigan lawyers and guide others to the best legal support.

Browse Lawyers

Find the Michigan Attorney for YOU!

Real Reviews from Clients

Across Michigan

Michigan Legal News

Tribal Orgs Amicus Brief in Jouppi v. Alaska

Tribal Orgs Amicus Brief in Jouppi v. Alaska

Here: 25-246 Jouppi v. Alaska Tribal Amicus Brief.pdfDownload Source link

October 14, 2026

Employment – Noncompete – Statute of frauds

Employment – Noncompete – Statute of frauds

Where defendants have challenged the validity of an 18-month post-employment noncompetition provision contained in a non-disclosure agreement, the defendants are not entitled to summary disposition even though the plaintiff has not yet produced a signed writing sufficient to establish authentication or adoption of the specific 18-month covenant. “Defendants Brandi Stoddard and Nine Nineteen Trade LLC move for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), seeking a declaration that the 18-month post-employment noncompetition provision contained in Copper Hill Inc.’s Employee Non-Disclosure, Developments and Conflict-of-Interest Agreement (the ‘NDA’) is unenforceable and dismissal of Copper Hill’s claims to the extent they depend upon that provision. Copper Hill opposes the motion, asserting that Stoddard signed or otherwise assented to the NDA and that the surrounding writings and her conduct create at least a factual question concerning formation. At the Court’s request, the parties submitted supplemental briefing concerning whether the alleged 18-month covenant must be supported by a signed writing. “MCR 2.116(C)(8) does not support dismissal. Copper Hill’s verified complaint alleges that Stoddard signed or otherwise assented in writing to the policies at issue. Whether Copper Hill can prove those allegations is an evidentiary question, not a pleading defect. “The alleged covenant falls within MCL 566.132(1)(a) because, by its terms, it cannot be completely performed within one year of its making. Michigan law permits several writings to satisfy the statutory note-or-memorandum requirement, but where the signature appears on one writing and the alleged agreement appears in another, the writings must be sufficiently connected so that the signature can fairly be said to authenticate the unsigned writing. On the present record, Copper Hill has not yet produced a signed writing sufficient to establish Stoddard’s authentication or adoption of the specific 18-month covenant. That present evidentiary deficiency, however, does not end the inquiry because discovery on the disputed formation and document-identification issues remains at an early stage. “Copper Hill has identified specific witnesses, communications, onboarding records, and document-handling issues on which further discovery presents a fair likelihood of developing evidence relevant to execution, authentication, loss, and identification of the alleged agreement. The Court therefore denies the motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) without prejudice to renewal after sufficient discovery on those issues. The Court does not determine that Stoddard signed or assented to the NDA, that the statute of frauds has been satisfied, or that the alleged covenant is reasonable or enforceable. Nor does this ruling dispose of Copper Hill’s independent claims to the extent they do not depend upon enforcement of the alleged noncompetition covenant.” Copper Hill Inc. v. Stoddard; MiLW No. 10-111198, 10 pages; Oakland Circuit Court; Valentine, J. Source link

October 14, 2026

City of Buffalo Sues Interior over Decision to Place Seneca Lands in Restricted Fee Status

City of Buffalo Sues Interior over Decision to Place Seneca Lands in Restricted Fee Status

Here is the complaint in City of Buffalo v. Dept. of the Interior (W.D. N.Y.): 1 Complaint.pdfDownload Source link

October 13, 2026

Featured in

AI Lawyer Finder

© 2025 Michigan Top Lawyers. All Rights Reserved. Powered by SolutionsPal | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service