Archives
July 01, 2015
Feature
- President's Reception
- Justices agree to hear dispute over union fees
- What high court's power plant ruling means for Mich.
- Daily Briefs . . .
Business
- Inboxes overflow as 2016ers amp up email appeals for cash
- More overtime on the way? Obama proposes broader coverage
- Home prices climb steadily in April
- Nebraska Report gives harrowing detail of prison 'rampage'
Column
- The high mortality rate of mutual funds hurts investors
- Today's divorce seeks to minimize cost and antagonism
- Social media guidelines for attorneys (Part I)
Courts
- Court ruling spurs backers' hopes for redistricting changes
- Oklahoma, Florida move quickly to resume lethal injections
- Abortion providers study whether clinics could reopen
Nation
- Jury rejects conservative's bias suit against dean
- University sued over sex assault claims
- Families, state settle suit in firefighters's deaths
- National Roundup
State
- Conservation interns help with bog mitigation project
- Civil War soldier finally gets headstone
- State high court: Legal representation fell short, new trial in murder case required
- State lifeguard's failure to act not 'proximate cause' of drowning
- Fraser Trebilcock attorney selected MSU Law School Inn of Court president
headlines Detroit
- Zearfoss to deliver Michigan Law commencement address ahead of planned retirement
- War with Iran fails to produce a ‘win’ that U.S and Israel were blindly seeking
- From conferences to certificates, MSU’s Indigenous Law and Policy Center leads the future of Tribal Law
- Business Law Seminar featuring 10 judges slated May 7 in Troy
- Daily Briefs
headlines National
- Exodus: Thousands of federal lawyers left their jobs by choice or by force in 2025
- Wisconsin moves to UBE to ease access-to-justice woes
- The Burton Book Review: A discussion on ‘When You Come at the King’
- Facebook, Instagram pulling ads from lawyers looking for plaintiffs ... to sue them
- Florida law school pressed to include chapter of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA
- BigLaw firm faces questions over $35M bill
