Listen to this article
This special section contains summaries of “important opinions” that were published in Michigan Lawyers Weekly in the second half of 2025.
The “Important Opinions of the Week” that appear on the front page of the newspaper are selected from the decisions issued and received the previous week. The summaries cover rulings from the appellate and trial courts in the state, as well as from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The full text of the opinions included in this section can be found on milawyersweekly.com. The complete Lawyers Weekly digest of any brief summary contained here can be found by searching Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s archives at milawyersweekly.com. Please note that Lawyers Weekly relies on individual judges and attorneys to inform it of trial court rulings that might be of interest to the bar. Please consider sending in these rulings whether or not they seem like significant cases. Upon request, the names of the attorneys of record in the case will be included in the paper.
If you wish to submit a trial court decision, please email it to James Andersen at [email protected].
ADMINISTRATIVE
Reporting requirements – Data breaches
Where petitioners have challenged a rule of the Federal Communications Commission imposing reporting requirements on telecommunications carriers in the event of data breaches involving customers’ personally identifiable information, the petitions for review should be denied despite the petitioners’ contention that the reporting requirements exceed the FCC’s statutory authority and violate the Congressional Review Act, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules. Ohio Telecom Ass’n v. FCC; MiLW No. 01-109602.
Uniform Unclaimed Property Act
Where a judge ruled that the statute of limitations set forth in MCL 567.250(2) barred all claims by the Michigan Treasurer advanced in an enforcement action under the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, the judge erred by ruling that the Treasurer was time-barred under MCL 567.250(2) from commencing future enforcement actions against the plaintiffs, the Michigan Court of Appeals decides. The Walt Disney Co. v. Eubanks; MiLW No. 07-109634.
ANTITRUST
Causation
Where antitrust claims were dismissed on the pleadings, the dismissal should be upheld because the plaintiff did not show that the defendant proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holds. Acad. of Allergy & Asthma in Primary Care v. Amerigroup Tennessee; MiLW No. 01-109823.
ARBITRATION
CBA – Misnomer
Where a U.S. District Court judge denied a motion to vacate an arbitration award in favor of a labor union, the judge’s decision should be affirmed even though the union’s arbitration demand mistakenly named a parent company with which the union did not have a collective bargaining agreement, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determines. Holtec Int’l Corp. v. Mich. State Util. Workers Council; MiLW No. 01-110016.
Employment context
Where two plaintiffs have alleged discrimination and retaliation, the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration should be allowed because a reasonable jury could find that both plaintiffs entered into valid and enforceable arbitration agreements, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan holds. Johnson v. Kelly Serv., Inc.; MiLW No. 02-109828.
Litigation conduct – “Default”
Where a complaint was dismissed when the defendant requested arbitration after a year of litigation, that was error because the request came too late, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules. Kloosterman v. Metro. Hosp.; MiLW No. 01-109655.
Non-compete – Injunctive relief request
Where a defendant who allegedly breached a noncompete agreement has moved to compel arbitration of two counts asserted by her former employer, the motion should be denied to the extent that the employer is seeking temporary injunctive relief and not damages, the Oakland Circuit Court decides. Sanford Bros., Inc. v. Buchan; MiLW No. 10-109624.
Probate proceedings
Where a U.S. District Court judge dismissed a complaint seeking to compel arbitration of state court probate proceedings, that decision should be affirmed based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules. Johnson v. Johnson; MiLW No. 01-109904.
Waiver
Where a defendant auto manufacturer’s motion to compel arbitration was denied on the ground that the defendant had waived its right to arbitrate, that decision must be reversed because the defendant did not learn until several months after the case progressed into discovery that some plaintiffs had agreed to arbitration clauses when they purchased their minivans, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals holds. Berzanskis v. FCA US, LLC; MiLW No. 01-109474.
ATTORNEYS
Fees – Class settlement
Where a law firm has challenged the distribution of fees in a settlement agreement following a train derailment, the lower court’s decision should be affirmed except for a narrow issue regarding the firm’s specific allocation of the total fee award, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holds. In re E. Palestine Train Derailment; MiLW No. 01-110017.
Malpractice – Statute of repose
Where a defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs’ legal malpractice and civil conspiracy claims are time-barred, that motion should be denied because the defendant has not carried her burden in showing that the statute of limitations has run on either claim, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan determines. Patel v. Lanam Foundry Corp.; MiLW No. 02-109945.
Sanctions – FDCPA
Where a defendant has moved for fees under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the motion should be allowed in part, as the plaintiff’s counsel, by failing to withdraw the complaint after receiving complete information confirming that it was meritless, unreasonably multiplied the proceedings in a way that subjects him to sanctions, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan rules. Ellis v. LVNV Funding, LLC; MiLW No. 02-109995.
BANKRUPTCY
Loan – Equity contribution
Where a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge refused to recharacterize a loan as an equity contribution, that decision must be reversed because of an evidentiary error by the judge, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules. Insight Terminal Solutions v. Cecelia Fin. Mgmt.; MiLW No. 01-109651.
CIVIL PRACTICE
Dismissal – Withdrawal of counsel
Where a plaintiff agreed to the dismissal of her complaint after being informed that her attorneys would not be permitted to withdraw, the order of dismissal must be reversed and a remand ordered because the record below contains no evidence that the plaintiff was aware that such a dismissal could be entered with prejudice or that she was aware of the potential implications of such an order, the Michigan Court of Appeals decides. Farmer v. Ahmed; MiLW No. 08-110073.
Subpoena – Standing
Where the defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case has moved to quash a subpoena that the plaintiff served on a non-party, that motion should be denied because the defendant lacks standing to oppose the subpoena since it was served on a non-party, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan holds. Soboleski v. Party Pizza Roseville, Inc.; MiLW No. 02-109767.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Prosecutor – Immunity
Where (1) two plaintiffs were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder based largely on a show-up identification, (2) after they had been incarcerated for more than five years, Michigan appellate courts vacated their convictions and prosecutors dismissed the case and (3) the plaintiffs subsequently sued Saginaw County and several individuals involved in their prosecution, including the Saginaw County Chief Assistant Prosecutor, a grant of summary judgment in favor of the prosecutor should affirmed with respect to a malicious prosecution claim but reversed as to a due process claim, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides. Ramsey v. Rivard; MiLW No. 01-110040.
State actors – Public function test
Where a plaintiff has brought a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim for violation of her right to intimate association under the First Amendment, the complaint should be dismissed to the extent that it is asserted against defendant KIPP Detroit Imani Academy, but the plaintiff has adequately alleged that two codefendants are state actors, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan holds. Leonard v. KIPP Detroit Imani Acad.; MiLW No. 02-109766.
COMMERCIAL
Receivership – Lease
Where a receiver rejected a lease, the trial court erred by concluding that the receiver could properly assign the lease to a stalking horse bidder without making a factual record on the matter, the Michigan Court of Appeals decides. Tropics, LP v. Green Peak Indus., Inc.; MiLW No. 07-109667.
CONSTITUTIONAL
Drones – Hunting
Where plaintiffs filed a complaint challenging a Michigan law that bans the use of drones to hunt or collect downed game, the plaintiffs established standing but the dismissal of their complaint must be affirmed because they have not shown that the Drone Statute fails intermediate scrutiny, held the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides. Yoder v. Bowen; MiLW No. 01-109550.
CONSUMER PROTECTION
TCPA
Where a defendant has requested interlocutory review following the denial of its motion to dismiss a complaint under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, that request should be denied because the controlling legal issue — the interpretation of “the called party” under the TCPA — does not involve a substantial ground for a difference of opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan rules. Massarello v. Power Home Remodeling Group, LLC; MiLW No. 02-109974.
CONTRACT
Liquidated damages
Where a defendant has asserted a counterclaim seeking liquidated damages, the plaintiff should be granted summary disposition because the liquidated damages provision in the parties’ Marketing Agreement constitutes a penalty under Fed Elec Co v Nat’l Serv Stations, 255 Mich 425; 238 NW 174, 174–75 (1931), the Oakland Circuit Court holds. Biotech Clinical Lab., Inc. v. RSL Med. Mktg., LLC; MiLW No. 10-109466.
DAMAGES
Case evaluation sanctions – Retroactivity
Where a plaintiff was denied case evaluation sanctions, a remand is necessary in light of the retroactive effect of Webster v. Osguthorpe, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025), the Michigan Court of Appeals holds in an unpublished opinion. Hensley v. Badri & Sons, Inc.; MiLW No. 08-109747.
Loss of services – Wrongful death
Where medical malpractice defendants filed a motion for partial summary disposition asking for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint to the extent that it requested damages for lost earning capacity and loss of services, the lower court’s decision to deny that motion should be affirmed in part and reversed in part, as lost-earning-capacity damages are no longer available under the Wrongful Death Act but loss-of-services damages remain available under the statute, the Michigan Court of Appeals rules. Demott v. VHS Harper-Hutzel Hosp., Inc; MiLW No. 07-109510.
Wrongful death – Medical malpractice
Where defendants have challenged a judgment against them in an action for wrongful death by medical malpractice, the judgment should be affirmed despite the defendants’ “phantom damages” argument, the Michigan Court of Appeals decides. Nelson v. Beaumont Health; MiLW No. 07-109916.
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
Consent judgment
Where a divorce judgment has been challenged on appeal, the judgment must be reversed in part, as the trial court erred by determining that it was not bound by a 2014 consent judgment, the Michigan Court of Appeals holds. Johnson v. Johnson; MiLW No. 07-109741.
EDUCATION
Free speech – Vulgarity
Where two students were not allowed to wear sweatshirts emblazoned with the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” to school, a judgment in favor of the school should be affirmed because the school reasonably understood the slogan “Let’s Go Brandon” to be vulgar, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules. B.A. v. Tri County Area Sch.; MiLW No. 01-109846.
Pronouns – Gender
Where a public school district bars its students from referring to transgender and nonbinary classmates using the pronouns that match their biological sex if the classmates prefer to go by different pronouns, a preliminary injunction must enter barring the district from punishing students for the commonplace use of biological pronouns, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holds. Defending Educ. v. Olentangy Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.; MiLW No. 01-109938.
School shooting – Wrongful death
Where summary disposition was awarded to the defendants in a wrongful death action arising out of a school shooting, that judgment must be reversed based on the impact that the wrongful-death savings provision articulated in MCL 600.5852 has on the time constraints associated with the notice requirements in MCL 600.6431 for claims against the state and its agencies, the Michigan Court of Appeals determines. St. Juliana v. State Police; MiLW No. 07-109511.
Sexual assaults
Where two student plaintiffs, alleging that individual classmates sexually assaulted them, brought suit against the defendant college for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and discrimination, the dismissal of their complaint should be affirmed because the college did not violate any duty to the plaintiffs, did not engage in extreme and outrageous conduct and cannot be held liable for disparate treatment or disparate impact, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holds. Chen v. Hillsdale Coll.; MiLW No. 01-109656.
EMPLOYMENT
Accommodation
Where a defendant employer has moved for summary judgment, that motion should be allowed in part, as the plaintiff cannot show that the employer failed to grant her accommodation request, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan rules. Pomeroy v. Paramount Rehab. Serv., P.C.; MiLW No. 02-109771.
Accommodation – Administrative charge
Where a defendant employer was awarded summary judgment, that judgment should be affirmed because the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to a claim of failure to accommodate, that claim is also untimely and the plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence for his retaliation and discrimination claims to survive summary judgment, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides. Pemberton v. Bell’s Brewery, Inc.; MiLW No. 01-109675.
Discrimination – “Culture”
Where a defendant employer was granted summary judgment in an age discrimination suit, the judgment must be reversed because the plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence of age discrimination to rebut the employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason for terminating him, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holds. Kean v. Brinker Int’l, Inc.; MiLW No. 01-109401.
Filing fee – 90-day deadline
Where an employment discrimination complaint was dismissed as untimely, that decision should be affirmed because the plaintiff paid his filing fee 91 days after receiving his right-to-sue letter, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides. Chen v. Michigan State Univ.; MiLW No. 01-109604.
FLSA – Caregiver
Where a plaintiff has alleged that the defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act because it failed to pay her overtime wages, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment because no reasonable jury could find that the defendant is an employer under the FLSA, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan holds. Piddock v. Cmty. Living Network; MiLW No. 02-109533.
Independent contractor – ELCRA
Where a defendant employer was awarded summary disposition under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act on the basis of the plaintiff’s status as a nonemployee independent contractor, that was error, as the plaintiff’s employment status was not dispositive of his ability to bring an ELCRA claim against the defendant, the Michigan Court of Appeals rules in an unpublished opinion. Luvene v. Pro Carpentry, LLC; MiLW No. 08-109421.
Minimum wage – Sick leave
Where the state legislature voted to amend the Michigan minimum wage statute in a manner that dramatically altered and virtually eliminated the changes voters sought through the initiative process, that decision violated the people’s constitutionally guaranteed right to propose and enact laws through the initiative process, the Michigan Supreme Court rules. Mothering Justice v. Attorney Gen.; MiLW No. 06-110050.
Racial harassment
Where plaintiffs alleged that their supervisors created a racially hostile work environment, the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the defendant employer must be reversed because it was plainly incorrect for the court to conclude that the plaintiffs’ testimony, about their supervisors’ use of the terms “monkey” and “monkey ass,” did not constitute evidence of racial harassment, the 6th U.S. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decides. Smith v. P.A.M. Transp., Inc.; MiLW No. 01-109760.
Retaliation – Rehabilitation Act
Where a plaintiff asserted retaliation, a judgment for the defendant should be affirmed because §504 of the Rehabilitation Act does not provide a cause of action for retaliation, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules. 1. Smith v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr.; MiLW No. 01-109990.
Retaliation – Title VII
Where a jury found in favor of a defendant employer on a plaintiff’s retaliation claim and her claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, the verdict should be upheld because the district court accurately interpreted the requirements of the plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim, and because it did not abuse its discretion in allowing the admission of limited evidence of her sexual history, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides. Graf v. Morristown-Hamblen Hosp. Ass’n; MiLW No. 01-109700.
EVIDENCE
Hearsay – Internal Affairs investigation
Where a plaintiff alleging excessive force has requested exclusion of statements he made when he was interviewed during an Internal Affairs investigation, that request should be denied because the plaintiff’s statements are not excludable under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan holds. Bowman v. City of Flint; MiLW No. 02-110048.
HABEAS CORPUS
Chimpanzees
Where a petition for habeas corpus was brought on behalf of seven chimpanzees, a decision to deny the petition should be affirmed because chimpanzees are not “persons” eligible for habeas relief, the Michigan Court of Appeals holds. Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. DeYoung Family Zoo, LLC; MiLW No. 07-109889.
IMMIGRATION
Removability – Child abuse
Where the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld an order to remove a petitioner who pleaded guilty to child abuse, the order of removal must be vacated because the petitioner was a citizen, not an alien, when his conviction occurred, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules. Castillo v. Bondi; MiLW No. 01-109402.
INSURANCE
Duty to defend – Shooting
Where the estate of a woman who was killed in a shooting has brought suit against the shooter, the insurance company that issued a homeowner’s policy to the shooter has no duty to defend him, as the death was the direct and foreseeable result of his actions, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holds. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Giannone; MiLW No. 01-109576.
Release – Settlement
Where claims were brought stemming from the defendants’ handling of a water-loss insurance claim, the defendants’ motions for summary disposition should have been allowed because the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by a settlement agreement and release, the Michigan Court of Appeals decides in an unpublished opinion. Cambridge Real Estate, LLC v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co.; MiLW No. 08-109981.
Title
Where a plaintiff has alleged that the defendant insurance company had a duty to defend and indemnify the plaintiff under a title insurance policy, the insurer is entitled to summary judgment under an exclusion in the policy because plaintiff knowingly failed to complete construction of the subject units within the relevant 10-year period and failed to withdraw them from the project as well, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan determines. Triple Prop. Detroit, LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co.; MiLW No. 02-109797.
JURISDICTION
LIGA – Abrogation
Where the plaintiff, a patron of the defendant, an online gaming licensee, brought an action in circuit court alleging common-law claims for breach of contract, conversion and fraud regarding a dispute over alleged winnings that the defendant refused to remit, there is no clear indication that the Legislature intended the Lawful Internet Gaming Act to abrogate the common-law claims raised in this litigation, the Michigan Supreme Court decides. Davis v. BetMGM, LLC; MiLW No. 06-109534.
Notice – Retroactivity
Where summary disposition was awarded to a state agency under Christie v. Wayne State Univ, 511 Mich 39, 52; 993 NW2d 203 (2023), the judgment should be affirmed based on the retroactive effect of the holding in Christie, the Michigan Court of Appeals rules. Hudson v. Dep’t of Corr.; MiLW No. 07-109561.
Venue – Transfer
Where a defendant, who allegedly breached her noncompete agreement and violated the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act, has moved to transfer venue to the Central District of California, the motion should be denied because none of the relevant factors clearly weigh in favor of transferring venue to the Central District of California, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan determines. Partner Assessment Corp. v. Rosen; MiLW No. 02-109772.
LABOR
Damages – Firing
Where the National Labor Relations Board found that an employer committed an unfair labor practice by discharging an employee due to her organizing activity, the board’s petition for enforcement of its decision that the employer committed an unfair labor practice should be granted but the board exceeded its statutory authority in awarding “direct or foreseeable” monetary damages, so the remedy must be vacated and a remand ordered, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Starbucks Corp.; MiLW No. 01-109936.
MUNICIPAL
Prosecutorial immunity
Where a defendant assistant prosecutor was found to be absolutely immune from liability, a remand must be ordered for proceedings consistent with a qualified immunity analysis, the Michigan Court of Appeals decides. Reeves v. County of Wayne; MiLW No. 07-109385.
ShotSpotter technology
Where a complaint was filed over the procurement of the ShotSpotter technology, the trial court erred in part when it granted summary disposition in the defendants’ favor on plaintiffs’ claim that defendants failed to release a Surveillance Technology Specification Report in accordance with the requirements of the Community Input Over Government Surveillance Ordinance, the Michigan Court of Appeals holds. Eagan v. City of Detroit; MiLW No. 07-109838.
Tax foreclosure sales – Fees
Where a judge determined that a county was not entitled to counsel fees incurred from proceedings involving the disbursement of remaining proceeds following tax-foreclosure sales, the judgment should be affirmed because MCL 211.78m and MCL 211.78t do not allow a foreclosing governmental unit to recover attorney fees and costs incurred for litigating issues involving the reimbursement of remaining proceeds, the Michigan Court of Appeals decides. In re Petition of Montcalm County Treasurer for Foreclosure; MiLW No. 07-109894.
Tax sales – Surplus funds
Where a class action was brought by plaintiffs to recover surplus proceeds from the sale of their properties by the defendant counties, a U.S. District Court judge’s decision to approve a proposed settlement agreement should be affirmed despite objections being raised, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holds. Wayside Church v. Van Buren County; MiLW No. 01-109825.
NEGLIGENCE
EALA – Passenger
Where a plaintiff was injured while riding as a passenger in a horse-drawn carriage, a grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendants should be affirmed based on the Equine Activity Liability Act, the Michigan Court of Appeals holds. Goch v. The Edison Inst.; MiLW No. 07-109890.
Flooding – Power outages
Where plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ actions caused power outages in the Freud Pump Station, resulting in the flooding of the plaintiffs’ properties, the trial court erred by determining that heavy rain constituted a superseding cause that precluded a finding that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead causation, the Michigan Court of Appeals rules in an unpublished opinion. Dubrulle v. DTE Energy Co.; MiLW No. 08-109642.
Medical malpractice – Limitations
Where a defendant otolaryngologist has moved for summary judgment, that motion must be denied because no reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims are untimely, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan holds. McGuire v. Levy; MiLW No. 02-109992.
Medical malpractice – Pandemic
Where summary disposition was awarded to the defendants under the Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act, the judgment must be reversed because the decedent did not sustain injury by reason of healthcare services provided in support of the State of Michigan’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Michigan Court of Appeals decides. Jokinen v. Beaumont Hosp. Troy; MiLW No. 07-109387.
Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act
Where a negligence claim was brought following a fatal slip-and-fall in a hospital shower during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, that claim was not barred by the Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act, so a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital must be reversed, the Michigan Court of Appeals determines in an unpublished opinion. Pakenas v. Macomb; MiLW No. 08-109722.
Preemption – Safety exception
Where a plaintiff filed a complaint under Ohio law alleging that the defendant, in its capacity as a freight broker, negligently hired an unsafe motor carrier, resulting in a motor vehicle crash that killed the plaintiff’s wife, a U.S. District Court judge’s decision to dismiss the complaint should be reversed because the plaintiff’s claims are not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration and Authorization Act, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules. Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc.; MiLW No. 01-109471.
NO-FAULT LAW
Assignments – PIP
Where appeals have been filed in two cases involving assignments of claims for personal protection insurance benefits, the judgments appealed from should be affirmed in part and reversed in part, as (1) both plaintiffs were not real parties in interest at the time they filed suit because they had previously assigned away their claims for PIP benefits, (2) defects in real party in interest status may be cured after the filing of a lawsuit and (3) the one-year-back rule, MCL 500.3145(2), does not affect whether a plaintiff is a real party in interest, though it may bar recovery, the Michigan Supreme Court holds. C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v. Progressive Michigan Ins. Co.; MiLW No. 06-109458.
Parked vehicle
Where a properly parked vehicle was struck by a moving car and propelled into a pizzeria, the parked vehicle functioned no differently than any other inanimate object and was not “involved in the accident” for the purposes of assigning responsibility for PPI benefits under MCL 500.3125, the Michigan Court of Appeals decides. Fremont Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.; MiLW No. 07-109954.
Subrogation
Where, after two plaintiffs received hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal protection insurance benefits after their vehicle came in contact with a tire that fell off a vehicle going in the opposite direction, intervening plaintiff insurance company sought recovery from third-party defendant Family Tire asserting that Family Tire improperly secured the tire while rotating the tires on the vehicle, an award of summary disposition in favor of the third-party defendant must be affirmed under Citizens Ins Co v. Pezzani & Reid Equip Co, Inc (On Remand), 202 Mich App 278; 507 NW2d 833 (1993), the Michigan Court of Appeals decides. Call v. L & KJ Enter., LLC; MiLW No. 07-109997.
PARENT AND CHILD
Termination – Anticipatory abuse
Where a judge terminated a respondent’s parental rights without requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to make reasonable reunification efforts, the judge erred by relying on anticipatory abuse to find aggravated circumstances, the Michigan Court of Appeals holds. In re KV; MiLW No. 07-109714.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Act 125
Where a plaintiff was granted summary disposition under the transmission infrastructure planning act, MCL 460.591 et seq., that judgment should be affirmed despite the defendant’s argument that the trial court erroneously determined that no evidence existed to show that the defendant’s facilities would “interconnect” with the Hiple-Duck Lake and Oneida Nelson Road Projects within the meaning of the statute, the Michigan Court of Appeals decides. Michigan Elec. Transmission Co., LLC v. Michigan Pub. Power Agency; MiLW No. 07-109440.
REAL PROPERTY
Real party in interest
Where a trust’s complaint was dismissed on the ground that the trust had transferred its property to a third party, that was error, as a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the trust’s continued ownership of the property, the Michigan Court of Appeals holds in an unpublished opinion. Violet M. Rowe Trust v. Dubach; MiLW No. 08-109691.
SECURITIES
Presumption of reliance
Where a class certification order has been challenged in an interlocutory appeal, the order must be vacated to the extent that it applied the presumption of reliance under Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972), while a remand is necessary for the district court to conduct a damages analysis under the proper standard set forth in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 35 (2013), the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides. Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp.; MiLW No. 01-109603.
TAXATION
Cargo containers – Fixtures
Where the Michigan Tax Tribunal determined that three cargo containers were fixtures on the petitioner’s real property, the tribunal erred by finding that the cargo containers were taxable for purposes of determining the true cash value (TCV) of the property, the Michigan Court of Appeals decides in an unpublished opinion. Qualls v. Twp. of Goodland; MiLW No. 08-109923.
TORT
Defamation – Facebook
Where a plaintiff law firm brought a defamation action against two defendants who posted statements in a Facebook group criticizing the firm, the dismissal of the complaint should be upheld because the statements constitute opinions and are not actionable as defamation, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holds. Lento Law Group v. Lewis; MiLW No. 01-109827.
ZONING
Right to Farm Act
Where a township brought a nuisance abatement action to enjoin a piggery owned by defendant, who contended that he should be permitted to continue raising his pigs under the Right to Farm Act and the equitable doctrines of laches and equitable estoppel, a judgment for the plaintiff must be vacated and a remand ordered because the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the RTFA defense was unavailable on nonretroactivity grounds, the Michigan Court of Appeals rules. Twp. of Fraser v. Haney; MiLW No. 07-109588.
Stop-work order
Where plaintiffs alleged that the defendant township (1) violated their procedural-due-process rights by issuing the stop-work order without providing notice or a pre-deprivation hearing and (2) committed a taking without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment, a grant of summary judgment in the township’s favor should be affirmed because of the plaintiffs’ failure to show that they had a valid property interest, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules. Hart v. Twp. of Presque Isle, Michigan; MiLW No. 01-109707.
