Sign In
Bookmark and Share
The following cases have been or will be argued before the Michigan Supreme Court during the 2014-2015 term. The entries below link to summaries of the cases, as well as to briefs by the parties and amici curiae. The case summaries were prepared by Supreme Court staff.   

These are simple summaries of complicated cases, and might not reflect the manner in which some or all of the Court's seven Justices view the cases. The lawyers may also disagree as to the facts, the issues, the procedural history, or the significance of their cases. 

Questions? Contact the Clerk of the Supreme Court at 517-373-0120 or, for more details about the cases, contact the attorneys. The State Bar of Michigan provides a directory of Michigan attorneys at www.michbar.org
 

 2014-2015 Cases

 
  • 10/22/2014

    Issue:
    Whether aiding and abetting under MCL 767.39 can be proven where the defendant failed to act according to a legal duty, but provided no other form of assistance to the perpetrator of the crime. ...More

    Orders:

    Calendar Number: Oral Argument on Application

    Opinions:

    Click here to view the briefs.

  • 10/09/2014

    Issue:
    Which party – the state or the plaintiff school districts - has the burden of proving underfunding of a legislative mandate in a challenge under Const 1963, art 9, § 29 (the Headlee Amendment), what elements of proof are necessary to sustain such a claim, and does acceptance of a general appropriation from the Legislature waive any challenge to the funding level for those requirements? ...More

    Orders:

    Calendar Number: 1

    Opinions:

    Click here to view the briefs.

  • 10/09/2014

    Issue:
    2012 PA 300, which amended the Public School Employees Retirement Act, requires public school employees to pay for retiree healthcare benefits by paying a 3% levy on their salary or to opt out of receiving retiree healthcare benefits. 2012 PA 300 also requires current public school employees to choose between various retirement benefit options, including paying a 4% levy on salary to stay in the defined benefit retirement program. The plaintiff school labor unions argue that 2012 PA 300 is unconstitutional and a breach of contract; the Court of Appeals upheld the law. ...More

    Orders:

    Calendar Number: 2

    Opinions:

    Click here to view the briefs.

  • 10/09/2014

    Issue:
    Does a legislative provision barring consideration of a necessarily included lesser offense violate the separation of powers doctrine? Does MCL 257.626(5) violate a defendant’s right to a jury trial by foreclosing a jury instruction on a lesser offense? Is MCL 257.601d a necessarily included lesser offense of MCL 257.626(4)? ...More

    Orders:

    Calendar Number:

    Opinions:

    Click here to view the briefs.

  • 10/08/2014

    Issue:
    The plaintiff was injured when the car he was driving was sideswiped by a dump truck operated by a city employee. Is the plaintiff’s tort claim against the city transportation department barred by governmental immunity? Do damages for pain and suffering, or emotional distress, qualify as a “bodily injury,” so that the plaintiff’s claim falls under the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1405? ...More

    Orders:

    Calendar Number: 3

    Opinions:

    Click here to view the briefs.

  • 10/08/2014

    Issue:
    What is the source and nature of the County’s power to move funds from the Inflation Equity Fund (IEF)? Does the movement of IEF assets to the defined benefit plan without a corresponding offset to the County’s Annual Required Contribution violate the Public Employee Retirement System Investment Act (PERSIA)? Does the movement of $32 million in IEF assets to the defined benefit plan constitute a “transaction” within the meaning of MCL 38.1133(8)? ...More

    Orders:

    Calendar Number: 8

    Opinions:

    Click here to view the briefs.

  • 10/08/2014

    Issue:
    The plaintiff was injured when the car she was driving was struck by a State of Michigan truck. Under the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity, a governmental agency can be liable for “bodily injury.” Does economic loss, in the form of wage loss, qualify as a “bodily injury” under the motor vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405? Did the plaintiff present such evidence in this case? ...More

    Orders:

    Calendar Number:

    Opinions:

    Click here to view the briefs.

  • 10/08/2014

    Issue:
    Was the defendant denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of trial counsel? Was the defendant denied the right to present a defense? Is the defendant entitled to a new trial? ...More

    Orders:

    Calendar Number: Oral Argument on Application

    Opinions:

    Click here to view the briefs.

  • 10/08/2014

    Issue:
    Does MCL 15.271(4) authorize an award of attorney fees and costs to a plaintiff who obtains declaratory relief regarding claimed violations of the Open Meetings Act, or must the plaintiff obtain injunctive relief as a necessary condition of recovering attorney fees and costs under MCL 15.271(4)? ...More

    Orders:

    Calendar Number: Oral Arguments on Application

    Opinions:

    Click here to view the briefs.

  • 10/07/2014

    Issue:
    Can interest and administrative fees for delinquent taxes be waived in a Michigan Tax Tribunal proceeding in which the Macomb County Treasurer was not a party; was the Macomb County Treasurer in a legal relationship with Macomb Township for purposes of waiving interest and fees; and does the plaintiff’s complaint for relief fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Tribunal? ...More

    Orders:

    Calendar Number: 4

    Opinions:

    Click here to view the briefs.

  • 10/07/2014

    Issue:
    Are the parties’ agreements requirements contracts, and if so, does that affect the issue of the defendant’s alleged breach of contract; was summary disposition appropriately granted to the plaintiffs on the issue of liability; and, assuming that the defendant is liable for breach of contract, what is the period for which the defendant is responsible for the plaintiffs’ lost profits? ...More

    Orders:

    Calendar Number: 5

    Opinions:

    Click here to view the briefs.

  • 10/07/2014

    Issue:
    Was the evidence sufficient to show that the defendant engaged in the “intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body or of any object into the genital or anal openings of another person’s body,” such that his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct under MCL 750.520b can be sustained? ...More

    Orders:

    Calendar Number: Oral Argument on Application

    Opinions:

    Click here to view the briefs.