––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://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
- Historical: Circuit Court judge has made indelible mark
- New ABA/Krill Strategies lawyer mental health study shows escalating burnout, risky alcohol use
- Nessel challenges administration’s rollbacks of Endangered Species Act regulations
- Time to renew license for 2026-2027 bar year
- Judge sentences man to 22 to 37 years for murder, felony firearm
headlines National
- Lindsay Clancy trial shows how hard it is to prove intent retroactively
- Is there a religious right to abortion? State supreme court will weigh in
- Harvey raises $550M in latest round of funding
- Vanderbilt law students will gain access to AI-powered deposition simulations
- Federal judges’ interns may accept stipends from law firms, ethics panel says
- Former lawyer who pulled gun on ex-wife in restaurant convicted of attempted murder




