This week we got one case opinion regarding Giorgio Webster v. Dr. Jeffrey Osguthorpe and Summit Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. It’s not the underlying medical malpractice case that gets any attention, it’s the Michigan Court Rule which got amended during the 20-months of litigation that the Michigan Supremes addressed.

This week the Michigan Supreme Court handed down one Order in the case of the People of the State of Michigan vs. Allen Michael Sherrill. Five our of six justices denied his appeal from the decision made by the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA). But one justice, Justice Bolden, would have been willing to accept the appeal because she believes the Michigan COA screwed-up one of the four elements reviewed in this case. She believes that the burden shifts from the Defendant to the Prosecutor on element number three. Do you agree with three?

This week the Michigan Supreme Court gave us one case to review. It was The People of Michigan v. Clinton, a criminal case was arose from a contract dispute. The holding here is that Larceny By Conversion was not in play when a housing contractor gave a down payment to a heating & cooling contractor. When a private party contractual dispute arises, a Prosecutor needs to stay in their own lane and deal with actual, legitimate criminal offenses.

This week the Michigan Supreme Court gave us two cases to review.



Stefanski vs. the Saginaw County 911 deals with the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), and whether or not the old school concept of Common Law could be incorporated into the MI WPA for the purposes of suing an employer. Stefanski said he was fired, not because it had too many unauthorized “no show” for work days, but because he was going to “blow the whistle” on his employers for gross negligence. But gross negligence isn’t a listed reason to be protected by the WPA. But it would be if the old common law practice were incorporated into this law.



In re: D. V. Lange addresses two statutory provisions regarding when child custody and the Probate courts can take jurisdiction over a minor child due to a parent’s neglect. Specifically, the issue was whether or not the mother was or was NOT able to care for her child. If should could care for the child, but chose not to, the probate court could take jurisdiction and enter the child into child protective service. But in a head-scratching line of reasoning, the Michigan Supreme Court deemed the mother was unable to care for her child, and so the probate court couldn’t take the minor child into custody.

This time, our one-off podcast will highlight three different administrative law cases. Don’t let the topic bore you, this is actually far more relevant to your day-to-day life than most cases will. That’s because almost every license issued to a professional in the State of Michigan is authorized and issued by your state government. For that reason, we will discuss:




A United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case making a determination whether the Michigan Constitution’s “Takings Clause” was implicated when the Edenville Dam collapsed in 2020, effectively evicting residents from their homes. Had Midland and Gladwin counties taken different actions, the Plaintiffs allege the dam never would have collapsed.



The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) found numerous workplace safety violations after an investigation of an employee who died when working on electric poles. We’ll discuss what recourse, and the process, the company had when disputing the government’s violation citations.



Lastly, we discuss a licensed counselor who lost a major business contract after the Michigan Attorney General brought criminal charges (but ultimately dismissed them). The counselor argues the State of Michigan caused him to lose a significant portion of his business because of the contract termination, which only resulted because of the criminal charges that were brought against him. Now that the MI Attorney General has dismissed those charges, should the AG be on the hook for that lost business?

As you’ll recall, the Michigan Senate sued the Michigan House of Representatives over nine legislative bills which passed both chambers of the Legislature in December, 2024. However, when the 102nd Legislature failed to present the bills to the Governor for her signature or veto, the current 103rd Legislature questioned whether it had the legal authority to do what the 102nd failed to do. We have a decision in the case. The Senate wins the bigger issue, the House got a few wins, too. Which Chamber do you believe was the bigger winner in the lawsuit? Listen to find out!

What is the difference between a user fee and a tax? The Michigan Supreme Court points out the difference (the hard way) for the City of East Lansing.

A lawsuit has been filed by the Michigan Senate against the Michigan House of Representatives. The lawsuit alleges that the House has failed to fulfill its constitutional duties, pursuant to Article 4, Section 33, by not submitting to the Governor nine (9) bills, as passed by the Michigan Legislature in 2024. However, the Presentment Clause of the Michigan Constitution may not say what the Michigan Senate is implying. The House contends it has done nothing wrong by taking extra time to review the 9 bills, to the contrary, it is satisfying the requirements the Constitution places upon it by ensuring any actions taken are lawful.



I have every reason to believe this lawsuit could make its way before the Michigan Supreme Court, hence the reason why I’m reporting on this lawsuit while still in the preliminary the trial stage. Give it a listen to see which side of the lawsuit you fall on. Both sides make excellent legal arguments for their respective side.

This week only produced one noteworthy court case, but it was a good one! We see a 5-2 mash-up of Democratic and Republican nominated justices both rule in favor of, and against, the Plaintiff in the case of River Crest Catering v. the Director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. This was a straggling COVID-19 case which relied upon an Executive Order limiting dine-in services to 100 people or 50% capacity [whichever was smaller] and a closure time by 11:00 p.m. At the heart of this case is whether the case was moot, the actions an unconstitutional delegation of authority and the government exceeding its legislative authority.

This week the Michigan Supreme Court gave us three cases which I found quite interesting. They are as follows:




Robert J. Kennedy v. MI Secretary of State–This case dealt with what to do when a candidate for office no longer wishes to run for office and wants to have their name removed from the ballot. Was it Politics 101 that the Secretary of State engaged in or was this a legitimately within the discretion of the SOS office?



People v. Fleming–This fellow alleged he had ineffective representation of counsel when his attorney didn’t give the jury the option of a Voluntary Manslaughter conviction. However, Mr. Fleming was claiming self-defense and a voluntary manslaughter charge doesn’t gel well with a claim of self-defense.



People v. Gonzalez–The MI Supremes found that a trial court judge stepped over the line when she sentenced the Defendant to 10 – 40 years of prison time, after the Defendant refused to accept her guilt and proceed with a trial.

This week the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 4-3 (4 Democrat nominated Justices, 3 Republican nominated Justices) in favor of Democrat Secretary of State and an election manual created by the Secretary of State’s office. Are contention was that the manual was in violation of Michigan Election law and should have (at a bare minimum) gone through the Michigan Administrative Procedure Act so has to have had public review and comment. This case was considered to be highly controversial because 1) The Michigan Supreme Court validated what is arguably unlawful actions taken by the SOS office; 2) It side-stepped the opportunity for the public to weigh-in on the proposed language within the manual, which changes election laws; and, 3) It was all 4 Justices nominated by the Michigan Democrats who voted en block to support the political actions of the Democrat Secretary of State.

This week the Michigan Supreme Court ruled on one case Miller, Miller & Whitman vs. MI Department of Corrections (DOC). In a 7-0 decision, the Supremes determined that a third-party can bring a retaliatory claim, pursuant to the Michigan Civil Rights Act (MCRA) alleging they were improperly fired for being friends with a co-worker who had brought a different MCRA case against the DOC.

This week the Michigan Supreme Court ruled on two different cases: Insurance Companies vs. the Livingston County Road Commission and Long Lake Twp. v. Todd & Heather Maxon.



The crux of the insurance companies versus the Livingston County Road Commission implicated both the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Attorney-Client Privilege.



In the “Long Lake Twp” case, the Michigan Supreme Court had to determine whether or not the use of a drone over a person’s real estate, without a warrant, was an unreasonable search.

We continue our conversation of Article 1, Section 17. This time we are delving in the concept of due process.



Article 1, Section 17: No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. The right of all individuals, firms, corporations and voluntary associations to fair and just treatment in the course of legislative and executive investigations and hearings shall not be infringed.



In this podcast we will learn:




The difference between a Personal Protection Order (PPO) and an ex-parte PPO, and what constitutional protections come along with that hearing;



Is a juvenile with developmental disabilities entitled to a competency hearing, and if so, how would the State use an adult framework in proceedings involving a minor?;



When does a photographic lineup and use of audio recordings played without the Defendant’s attorney present violated the Due Process Clause of Article 1, Section 17?



Does Due Process apply to state of Michigan employees looking for a job re-classification?

We continue our conversation of Article 1, Section 17. This time we are delving in the concept of due process.



Article 1, Section 17: No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. The right of all individuals, firms, corporations and voluntary associations to fair and just treatment in the course of legislative and executive investigations and hearings shall not be infringed.



In this podcast we will learn:




You ensure due process, you are guaranteed an impartial decisionmaker; notice of the charge or action being taken against you; a hearing which allows you the right to respond to the action being taken against you.



Does the government action being taken relate to the purpose it is seeking to accomplish? [Hint: it’s not an easy answer]



Fairness is the bedrock of due process, but what makes something ‘fair’?



Not everything is a constitutional guarantee, especially if the right is created by statute.



When does a civil action become a de facto criminal action by the government?



Does a criminal defendant as a person have a right to go to the scene of a crime if his attorney could go on behalf of a Defendant?



Trial, Re-Trials and Hung Jurys (Oh My!)

In this podcast, we will continue our conversation regarding Article 1, Section 17 and the protection against self-incrimination.



In particular, we will discuss:




Are you aware the government can (and does) use your right to not incriminate yourself, against you in court? We discuss that!



What about the business you own? Did you know that the right against self-incrimination does not apply to your own business which you own, run and operate? We discuss that too!

Article 1, Section 17 reads as follows:“No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. The right of all individuals, firms, corporations and voluntary associations to fair and just treatment in the course of legislative and executive investigations and hearings shall not be infringed.“



So what does that mean? In this podcast we will learn:




When is a confession considered to be an involuntary confession, which the Defendant can retract?



Can an offer of leniency be taken into account for a confession?



What happens when Defendant #1 confesses, and it implicates Defendant #2 who is fighting the criminal charge?

In this one-off podcast we discuss cases I want to talk about.



City of Warren v. MI State Construction Code Commission–Can the Michigan Legislature delegate is legislative making decision to an unelected board? That’s the power given to the MI Construction Code Commission when they adopt the construction codes to be used and enforced within the entire State of Michigan. But is that a power that Michigan Legislature should be required to implement?



McGoldrick v. Holiday Amusement–Is it negligent for a ski resort to place tension wires necessary for tow ropes in areas where skiers might ski into them? What level of protection does a ski resort have against personal injury lawsuits?



Richards v. Boyne USA–What level of responsibility does a ski instructor have to their “newbie” skiers? Can a skier waive their right to sue a ski resort when the skier injures themself? Does it matter if the injury was a result of the ski instructor’s negligence?

In this one-off podcast, we discuss ordinances and how they impact daily life.



County of Marquette v. Northern Michigan University–Does the Michigan Construction Codes govern how student dormitories are to be constructed?



Capital Region Airport Authority v. Charter Twp of DeWitt–Must the local airport comply with township ordinances when it wants to build buildings on its land?



Burt Twp. v. MI Dept of Natural Resources–When the Department wants to build a dock for public uses, does the State have to comply with the local’s ordinance?



Daley v. Twp of Chesterfield–Who decides if a garage violates the township’s ordinance? Will it be the local construction board who oversees the construction of garage or will it be the local zoning board tasked with enforcing the township’s ordinances?

Premise liability is the number one money-maker for slip & fall lawyers. Fortunately in Michigan, there is something called the “Open & Obvious” doctrine which is used to help get lawsuit-happy litigants out of our court system. In this one-off podcast, we will discuss what it means and how certain statutes, regulations and codes can play a factor in helping us to determine whether the Open & Obvious doctrine applies.