––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
- Posted January 16, 2014
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Grandparents' rights case goes before Michigan Supreme Court
Grandparents seeking visiting time with the children of their deceased son will have their case heard by the Michigan Supreme Court in oral arguments this week in Lansing.
Robert and Judith Porter, the plaintiffs in Porter v Hill, sought a court order to allow them to have grandparenting time.
The children's mother, Christina Hill, opposed them, arguing that the Porters lacked legal standing to sue for grandparenting time since their son's parental rights were terminated before he died.
A trial court judge reluctantly ruled that the Porters lacked standing, adding, "I hope the Court of Appeals reverses me on this issue."
But in a 2-1 ruling, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court, with the majority holding that the Porters lacked standing because their son was not the children's legal father at the time of his death.
The dissenting judge argued that the majority misread the state's Child Custody Act and that the Legislature had intended to allow grandparents to seek grandparenting time despite termination of a son or daughter's parental rights.
The Supreme Court will also hear State of Michigan v CVS Caremark, et al., in which a number of companies that operate pharmacies in Michigan are accused of overcharging for generic prescription drugs.
Also before the court are two cases of alleged sexual abuse of children, People v Shaver and People v Douglas.
In addition, the court will hear arguments in People v White, involving the 180-day or "speedy trial" rule, and IBM v Department of Treasury, a tax case.
Also to be argued is Yono v Department of Transportation, in which MDOT challenges a Court of Appeals ruling allowing the plaintiff to pursue her lawsuit against MDOT.
At issue is whether the parking lane where the plaintiff fell is part of the "improved portion of the roadway designed for vehicular travel" which MDOT would have a duty to maintain.
Published: Thu, Jan 16, 2014
headlines Oakland County
- Annual Dinner & Meeting
- FORCE Team arrests six in prolific auto theft ring
- Michigan allocates $12 million to support community-based organizations in advancing environmental and climate justice
- Oakland County and SMART launch pilot program providing free transit for veterans and dependents
- Supreme Court sides with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
headlines National
- More lawyers—and clients—want to learn about sustainable development practices
- Top artificial intelligence insurance tips for lawyers
- Lawyer charged with illegally transmitting Michigan data after 2020 election
- Viral video shows former Rikers Island inmate as she learns she passed bar exam on first try
- How Sullivan & Cromwell is scrutinizing potential new hires after campus protests
- No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes, SCOTUS rules