The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) will hear oral arguments in eight cases on Wednesday, January 22, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the 6th floor courtroom at the Michigan Hall of Justice at 925 W. Ottawa, Lansing. Oral arguments will be livestreamed from the MSC website.
The notice of cases is posted on the Supreme Court’s oral arguments web page.
The following brief accounts may not reflect the way that some or all of the court’s seven justices view the case. The attorneys may also disagree about the facts, issues, procedural history, and significance of this case. For further details, contact the attorneys.
Wednesday, January 22
Morning Session – 9:30 a.m.
166619
KENNETH MANN, (attorney Steven Hicks)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Wayne CC - Hubbard, S.)
CITY OF DETROIT, (attorney Shari Whyte)
Defendant-Appellee.
The plaintiff allegedly tripped over a metal pole protruding from a sidewalk while walking in the city of Detroit, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. He filed suit against the city, alleging that it violated its duty under MCL 691.1402a to maintain the sidewalk in reasonable repair. The defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), asserting governmental immunity. The defendant argued that the sidewalk exception to governmental immunity did not apply because the pole was not part of the sidewalk itself. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the plaintiff that the protruding pole constituted part of the sidewalk itself. The Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 unpublished opinion, reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of the defendant. The Court of Appeals majority agreed with the defendant that the pole was not part of the sidewalk itself and, therefore, the sidewalk exception to governmental immunity did not apply. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether the sidewalk exception to immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, MCL 691.1402a, applies to the metal pole protruding from the sidewalk that allegedly caused the plaintiff to trip and sustain injuries.
166627-8
GIORGIO WEBSTER, (attorney Matthew Klakulak)
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Macomb CC - Biernat, J.)
JEFFREY OSGUTHORPE and SUMMIT ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, PC, (attorney Ronald Lederman)
Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
The parties in this medical malpractice case participated in case evaluation on December 8, 2020, and the case evaluation panel awarded $199,000 in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff accepted the award, but the defendants rejected it. Under the version of MCR 2.403(O) in place at that time, the plaintiff could be awarded case evaluation sanctions if he proceeded to trial and the jury’s verdict was more favorable than the case evaluation award. But MCR 2.403 was amended effective January 1, 2022, to eliminate case evaluation sanctions. The malpractice case proceeded to trial, and on April 14, 2022, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff resulting in a judgment of $565,000. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or remittitur. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for an award of case evaluation sanctions under the pre-amendment version of MCR 2.403 and added $169,512.54 to the judgment. The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ post-judgment motion but reversed the trial court’s award of case evaluation sanctions. The defendants filed an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court and the plaintiff filed a cross-application for leave to appeal challenging the case evaluation sanctions ruling. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the cross-application to address: (1) whether the Macomb Circuit Court had the discretion to apply the former MCR 2.403(O); and, if so (2) whether an award of sanctions was justified in this case.
166477-8
JENNIFER JANETSKY, (attorney Channing Robinson-Holmes)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
((Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Saginaw CC - Prill, G.)
COUNTY OF SAGINAW and CHRISTOPHER BOYD, (attorney Douglas Curlew)
Defendants-Appellees,
and
SAGINAW COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
and JOHN McCOLGAN,
Defendants.
—————
JENNIFER JANETSKY, (attorney Channing Robinson-Holmes)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
((Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Saginaw CC - Prill, G.)
COUNTY OF SAGINAW, JOHN McCOLGAN, and CHRISTOPHER BOYD, (attorney Douglas Curlew)
Defendants-Appellees,
and
SAGINAW COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE,
Defendant.
The plaintiff, an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney in Saginaw County, claims that her immediate supervisor, the Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney (Christopher Boyd), brokered an allegedly unlawful plea deal. She reported a suspected violation of law stemming from the plea deal to the Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney. She claims that after she made this report, her supervisor became angry with her and her workplace became a hostile work environment. After going on paid administrative leave, the plaintiff ultimately resigned. She then filed a lawsuit against her immediate supervisor, the Saginaw County Prosecutor’s Office, the Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney, and Saginaw County, alleging a violation of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., as well as various intentional torts. The defendants moved for summary disposition, and the trial court dismissed certain defendants and claims. But the plaintiff’s WPA and public policy claims against Saginaw County, the Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney, and the plaintiff’s former supervisor survived, as did the plaintiff’s intentional tort claims of assault and battery and false imprisonment against her former supervisor and Saginaw County. The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, reversed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the defendants should have been granted summary disposition as to all claims. But following oral argument on the application, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, in part, holding that the court erred by concluding that: (1) defendant Christopher Boyd is entitled to immunity from tort liability because there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning whether he acted in good faith; (2) the plaintiff has not established a genuine issue of material fact that she engaged in protected activity under the WPA by reporting actual or suspected violations of the law; and (3) the WPA provides the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff’s public-policy claim. Janetsky v Saginaw Co, 510 Mich 1104 (2022). The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issues raised by the defendants but not addressed by that court during its initial review. On remand, the Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 unpublished opinion, reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for summary disposition. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff: (1) may not bring a WPA claim against Saginaw County because it is not her employer; (2) lacks a cognizable public policy claim; and (3) failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding her intentional tort claims. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for entry of an order granting the defendants’ motion for summary disposition with respect to all of the plaintiff’s claims except her claim for retaliation under the WPA. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals properly determined that Saginaw County was not the plaintiff’s employer for purposes of her Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, MCL 15.361 et seq., claim; (2) whether the plaintiff’s alleged efforts to bring a criminal prosecution into compliance with MCL 771.1 gave rise to a common-law claim for termination in violation of public policy as recognized by Suchodolski v Mich Consol Gas Co, 412 Mich 692, 694-695 (1982); and (3) whether the plaintiff established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding her intentional tort claims of false imprisonment and assault and battery.
166663
JAMES STEFANSKI, (attorney Kevin Kelly)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Saginaw CC - Trice, M.)
SAGINAW COUNTY 911 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER AUTHORITY, (attorney Andrea Pike)
Defendant-Appellee.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a 911 call taker/dispatcher. He sued the defendant under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., claiming that the defendant retaliated against him for making statements to the director about a coworker improperly coding a 911 call as a shots-fired incident instead of an incident in which someone was shot, delaying the response and potentially contributing to the victim’s death. The plaintiff alleges that he reported gross negligence to a public body and that this was a protected activity under the WPA because gross negligence is a violation of the common law. The trial court held that reporting a suspected violation of the common law is not a protected activity under the WPA and granted summary disposition in favor of the defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, holding that under Landin v HealthSource Saginaw, Inc, 305 Mich App 519 (2014), reporting a violation of the common law is not a protected activity. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether reporting a violation of the common law, including gross negligence, constitutes reporting “a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law . . .” under MCL 15.362 of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (“WPA”); and (2) whether the defendant was entitled to summary disposition on the basis that the plaintiff did not engage in a protected activity under the WPA, MCL 15.362.
Wednesday, January 22
Afternoon Session – 12:30 p.m.
163968
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Eric Restuccia)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Van Buren CC - Brickley, K.)
EDWIN LAMAR LANGSTON, (attorney Kimberly Thomas)
Defendant-Appellant.
In 1976, the defendant was convicted of felony murder for aiding and abetting an armed robbery resulting in death and was sentenced to life without parole. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial on the basis that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on malice. The prosecutor filed an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which held the application in abeyance pending its decision in People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672 (1980). In Aaron, the Court held that malice is a necessary element of any murder, including felony murder, but held that its decision would only apply to trials in progress and those occurring after the date of the opinion, which was issued on November 24, 1980. After issuing its decision in Aaron, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case and reinstated the defendant’s murder conviction. In 2020, the defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing that the prospective-only statement in Aaron was contrary to law, an improper application of constitutional avoidance, and violated due process. The defendant further argued that a sentence of life without parole is cruel and/or unusual for felony murder convictions obtained without a finding of malice and that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel due to counsel’s failure to raise these arguments on direct appeal. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion and the Court of Appeals denied his application for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672 (1980), correctly limited its application to prospective-only relief; (2) whether, in the absence of evidence that the defendant acted with malice, mandatory life without parole for felony murder constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16 or US Const, Am VIII; and (3) whether People v Hall, 396 Mich 650 (1976), should be overruled.
166813
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Tim Baughman)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Wayne CC - Morrow, B.)
JOHN ANTONIO POOLE, (attorney Maya Menlo)
Defendant-Appellee.
Following a jury trial in 2002, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for a crime he committed when he was 18 years old. The trial court sentenced him to the mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of parole. In 2019, after his conviction had become final on direct appeal, he filed a successive motion for relief from judgment, citing Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460 (2012), and Montgomery v Louisiana, 577 US 190 (2016), as a retroactive change in the law entitling him to bring another motion for relief from judgment under MCR 6.502(G). In Miller, the United States Supreme Court held that a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a juvenile convicted of a homicide offense was unconstitutional. The defendant argued that Miller’s analysis and holding should be extended to prohibit mandatory life without parole sentences for 18-year-old offenders. The trial court issued an order returning the motion to the defendant without filing. The Court of Appeals dismissed the defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and, following oral argument, vacated the order of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to that court to determine whether the defendant was entitled to relief under People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 (2022), in which the Court held that mandatorily subjecting 18-year-old defendants convicted of first-degree murder to a sentence of life without parole constitutes unconstitutionally cruel punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16. On remand, the Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 published opinion, held that Parks applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address whether the Court’s decision in People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 (2022), applies retroactively to cases that have become final after the expiration of the period for direct review. The Supreme Court directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Bouie (Docket No. 166232) and People v Czarnecki (Docket No. 166654).
166428
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Katie Jory)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Genesee CC - Yuille, R.)
MONTARIO MARQUISE TAYLOR, (attorney Maya Menlo)
Defendant-Appellant.
Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for a crime he committed when he was 20 years old. The trial court sentenced him to the mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 (2022), in which the Court held that mandatorily subjecting 18-year-old defendants convicted of first-degree murder to a sentence of life without parole constitutes unconstitutionally cruel punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16. On remand, the Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the defendant’s sentence, concluding that it was bound by the decision in People v Hall, 396 Mich 650 (1976). The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether the Court’s holding in People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 (2022), should be extended to defendants who are 20 years of age at the time they commit a crime and are sentenced to mandatory life without parole, see Const 1963, art 1, § 16; and (2) whether it is necessary to overrule People v Hall, 396 Mich 650 (1976), in order to extend Parks to defendants who were 20 years of age and, if so, whether the Court should overrule it. The Supreme Court directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Czarnecki (Docket No. 166654) and People v Poole (Docket No. 166813).
166654
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Jon Wojtala
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Wayne CC - Hathaway, M.)
ANDREW MICHAEL CZARNECKI, (attorney Maya Menlo)
Defendant-Appellant.
Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and other offenses for crimes he committed when he was 19 years old. The trial court sentenced him to the mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of parole for the first-degree murder conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The defendant filed an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, where he argued for the first time that his mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16. The Supreme Court held the defendant’s application in abeyance pending the decisions in People v Parks (Docket No. 162086) and People v Poole (Docket No. 161529). After the Supreme Court decided those cases, the Court remanded the defendant’s case to the Court of Appeals for consideration in light of People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 (2022), in which the Court held that mandatorily subjecting 18-year-old defendants convicted of first-degree murder to a sentence of life without parole constitutes unconstitutionally cruel punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16. On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of the defendant’s sentence in a published opinion. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether the holding in People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 (2022), should be extended to defendants who are 19 years of age at the time they commit a crime and are sentenced to mandatory life without parole, see Const 1963, art 1, § 16; and (2) whether it is necessary to overrule People v Hall, 396 Mich 650 (1976), in order to extend Parks to defendants who were 19 years of age and, if so, whether the Court should overrule it. The Supreme Court directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Bouie (Docket No. 166232) and People v Poole (Docket No. 166813).
The notice of cases is posted on the Supreme Court’s oral arguments web page.
The following brief accounts may not reflect the way that some or all of the court’s seven justices view the case. The attorneys may also disagree about the facts, issues, procedural history, and significance of this case. For further details, contact the attorneys.
Wednesday, January 22
Morning Session – 9:30 a.m.
166619
KENNETH MANN, (attorney Steven Hicks)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Wayne CC - Hubbard, S.)
CITY OF DETROIT, (attorney Shari Whyte)
Defendant-Appellee.
The plaintiff allegedly tripped over a metal pole protruding from a sidewalk while walking in the city of Detroit, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. He filed suit against the city, alleging that it violated its duty under MCL 691.1402a to maintain the sidewalk in reasonable repair. The defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), asserting governmental immunity. The defendant argued that the sidewalk exception to governmental immunity did not apply because the pole was not part of the sidewalk itself. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the plaintiff that the protruding pole constituted part of the sidewalk itself. The Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 unpublished opinion, reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of the defendant. The Court of Appeals majority agreed with the defendant that the pole was not part of the sidewalk itself and, therefore, the sidewalk exception to governmental immunity did not apply. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether the sidewalk exception to immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, MCL 691.1402a, applies to the metal pole protruding from the sidewalk that allegedly caused the plaintiff to trip and sustain injuries.
166627-8
GIORGIO WEBSTER, (attorney Matthew Klakulak)
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Macomb CC - Biernat, J.)
JEFFREY OSGUTHORPE and SUMMIT ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, PC, (attorney Ronald Lederman)
Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
The parties in this medical malpractice case participated in case evaluation on December 8, 2020, and the case evaluation panel awarded $199,000 in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff accepted the award, but the defendants rejected it. Under the version of MCR 2.403(O) in place at that time, the plaintiff could be awarded case evaluation sanctions if he proceeded to trial and the jury’s verdict was more favorable than the case evaluation award. But MCR 2.403 was amended effective January 1, 2022, to eliminate case evaluation sanctions. The malpractice case proceeded to trial, and on April 14, 2022, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff resulting in a judgment of $565,000. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or remittitur. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for an award of case evaluation sanctions under the pre-amendment version of MCR 2.403 and added $169,512.54 to the judgment. The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ post-judgment motion but reversed the trial court’s award of case evaluation sanctions. The defendants filed an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court and the plaintiff filed a cross-application for leave to appeal challenging the case evaluation sanctions ruling. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the cross-application to address: (1) whether the Macomb Circuit Court had the discretion to apply the former MCR 2.403(O); and, if so (2) whether an award of sanctions was justified in this case.
166477-8
JENNIFER JANETSKY, (attorney Channing Robinson-Holmes)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
((Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Saginaw CC - Prill, G.)
COUNTY OF SAGINAW and CHRISTOPHER BOYD, (attorney Douglas Curlew)
Defendants-Appellees,
and
SAGINAW COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
and JOHN McCOLGAN,
Defendants.
—————
JENNIFER JANETSKY, (attorney Channing Robinson-Holmes)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
((Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Saginaw CC - Prill, G.)
COUNTY OF SAGINAW, JOHN McCOLGAN, and CHRISTOPHER BOYD, (attorney Douglas Curlew)
Defendants-Appellees,
and
SAGINAW COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE,
Defendant.
The plaintiff, an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney in Saginaw County, claims that her immediate supervisor, the Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney (Christopher Boyd), brokered an allegedly unlawful plea deal. She reported a suspected violation of law stemming from the plea deal to the Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney. She claims that after she made this report, her supervisor became angry with her and her workplace became a hostile work environment. After going on paid administrative leave, the plaintiff ultimately resigned. She then filed a lawsuit against her immediate supervisor, the Saginaw County Prosecutor’s Office, the Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney, and Saginaw County, alleging a violation of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., as well as various intentional torts. The defendants moved for summary disposition, and the trial court dismissed certain defendants and claims. But the plaintiff’s WPA and public policy claims against Saginaw County, the Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney, and the plaintiff’s former supervisor survived, as did the plaintiff’s intentional tort claims of assault and battery and false imprisonment against her former supervisor and Saginaw County. The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, reversed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the defendants should have been granted summary disposition as to all claims. But following oral argument on the application, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, in part, holding that the court erred by concluding that: (1) defendant Christopher Boyd is entitled to immunity from tort liability because there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning whether he acted in good faith; (2) the plaintiff has not established a genuine issue of material fact that she engaged in protected activity under the WPA by reporting actual or suspected violations of the law; and (3) the WPA provides the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff’s public-policy claim. Janetsky v Saginaw Co, 510 Mich 1104 (2022). The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issues raised by the defendants but not addressed by that court during its initial review. On remand, the Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 unpublished opinion, reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for summary disposition. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff: (1) may not bring a WPA claim against Saginaw County because it is not her employer; (2) lacks a cognizable public policy claim; and (3) failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding her intentional tort claims. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for entry of an order granting the defendants’ motion for summary disposition with respect to all of the plaintiff’s claims except her claim for retaliation under the WPA. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals properly determined that Saginaw County was not the plaintiff’s employer for purposes of her Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, MCL 15.361 et seq., claim; (2) whether the plaintiff’s alleged efforts to bring a criminal prosecution into compliance with MCL 771.1 gave rise to a common-law claim for termination in violation of public policy as recognized by Suchodolski v Mich Consol Gas Co, 412 Mich 692, 694-695 (1982); and (3) whether the plaintiff established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding her intentional tort claims of false imprisonment and assault and battery.
166663
JAMES STEFANSKI, (attorney Kevin Kelly)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Saginaw CC - Trice, M.)
SAGINAW COUNTY 911 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER AUTHORITY, (attorney Andrea Pike)
Defendant-Appellee.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a 911 call taker/dispatcher. He sued the defendant under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., claiming that the defendant retaliated against him for making statements to the director about a coworker improperly coding a 911 call as a shots-fired incident instead of an incident in which someone was shot, delaying the response and potentially contributing to the victim’s death. The plaintiff alleges that he reported gross negligence to a public body and that this was a protected activity under the WPA because gross negligence is a violation of the common law. The trial court held that reporting a suspected violation of the common law is not a protected activity under the WPA and granted summary disposition in favor of the defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, holding that under Landin v HealthSource Saginaw, Inc, 305 Mich App 519 (2014), reporting a violation of the common law is not a protected activity. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether reporting a violation of the common law, including gross negligence, constitutes reporting “a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law . . .” under MCL 15.362 of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (“WPA”); and (2) whether the defendant was entitled to summary disposition on the basis that the plaintiff did not engage in a protected activity under the WPA, MCL 15.362.
Wednesday, January 22
Afternoon Session – 12:30 p.m.
163968
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Eric Restuccia)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Van Buren CC - Brickley, K.)
EDWIN LAMAR LANGSTON, (attorney Kimberly Thomas)
Defendant-Appellant.
In 1976, the defendant was convicted of felony murder for aiding and abetting an armed robbery resulting in death and was sentenced to life without parole. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial on the basis that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on malice. The prosecutor filed an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which held the application in abeyance pending its decision in People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672 (1980). In Aaron, the Court held that malice is a necessary element of any murder, including felony murder, but held that its decision would only apply to trials in progress and those occurring after the date of the opinion, which was issued on November 24, 1980. After issuing its decision in Aaron, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case and reinstated the defendant’s murder conviction. In 2020, the defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing that the prospective-only statement in Aaron was contrary to law, an improper application of constitutional avoidance, and violated due process. The defendant further argued that a sentence of life without parole is cruel and/or unusual for felony murder convictions obtained without a finding of malice and that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel due to counsel’s failure to raise these arguments on direct appeal. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion and the Court of Appeals denied his application for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672 (1980), correctly limited its application to prospective-only relief; (2) whether, in the absence of evidence that the defendant acted with malice, mandatory life without parole for felony murder constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16 or US Const, Am VIII; and (3) whether People v Hall, 396 Mich 650 (1976), should be overruled.
166813
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Tim Baughman)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Wayne CC - Morrow, B.)
JOHN ANTONIO POOLE, (attorney Maya Menlo)
Defendant-Appellee.
Following a jury trial in 2002, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for a crime he committed when he was 18 years old. The trial court sentenced him to the mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of parole. In 2019, after his conviction had become final on direct appeal, he filed a successive motion for relief from judgment, citing Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460 (2012), and Montgomery v Louisiana, 577 US 190 (2016), as a retroactive change in the law entitling him to bring another motion for relief from judgment under MCR 6.502(G). In Miller, the United States Supreme Court held that a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a juvenile convicted of a homicide offense was unconstitutional. The defendant argued that Miller’s analysis and holding should be extended to prohibit mandatory life without parole sentences for 18-year-old offenders. The trial court issued an order returning the motion to the defendant without filing. The Court of Appeals dismissed the defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and, following oral argument, vacated the order of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to that court to determine whether the defendant was entitled to relief under People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 (2022), in which the Court held that mandatorily subjecting 18-year-old defendants convicted of first-degree murder to a sentence of life without parole constitutes unconstitutionally cruel punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16. On remand, the Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 published opinion, held that Parks applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address whether the Court’s decision in People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 (2022), applies retroactively to cases that have become final after the expiration of the period for direct review. The Supreme Court directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Bouie (Docket No. 166232) and People v Czarnecki (Docket No. 166654).
166428
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Katie Jory)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Genesee CC - Yuille, R.)
MONTARIO MARQUISE TAYLOR, (attorney Maya Menlo)
Defendant-Appellant.
Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for a crime he committed when he was 20 years old. The trial court sentenced him to the mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 (2022), in which the Court held that mandatorily subjecting 18-year-old defendants convicted of first-degree murder to a sentence of life without parole constitutes unconstitutionally cruel punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16. On remand, the Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the defendant’s sentence, concluding that it was bound by the decision in People v Hall, 396 Mich 650 (1976). The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether the Court’s holding in People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 (2022), should be extended to defendants who are 20 years of age at the time they commit a crime and are sentenced to mandatory life without parole, see Const 1963, art 1, § 16; and (2) whether it is necessary to overrule People v Hall, 396 Mich 650 (1976), in order to extend Parks to defendants who were 20 years of age and, if so, whether the Court should overrule it. The Supreme Court directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Czarnecki (Docket No. 166654) and People v Poole (Docket No. 166813).
166654
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Jon Wojtala
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Wayne CC - Hathaway, M.)
ANDREW MICHAEL CZARNECKI, (attorney Maya Menlo)
Defendant-Appellant.
Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and other offenses for crimes he committed when he was 19 years old. The trial court sentenced him to the mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of parole for the first-degree murder conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The defendant filed an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, where he argued for the first time that his mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16. The Supreme Court held the defendant’s application in abeyance pending the decisions in People v Parks (Docket No. 162086) and People v Poole (Docket No. 161529). After the Supreme Court decided those cases, the Court remanded the defendant’s case to the Court of Appeals for consideration in light of People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 (2022), in which the Court held that mandatorily subjecting 18-year-old defendants convicted of first-degree murder to a sentence of life without parole constitutes unconstitutionally cruel punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16. On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of the defendant’s sentence in a published opinion. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether the holding in People v Parks, 510 Mich 225 (2022), should be extended to defendants who are 19 years of age at the time they commit a crime and are sentenced to mandatory life without parole, see Const 1963, art 1, § 16; and (2) whether it is necessary to overrule People v Hall, 396 Mich 650 (1976), in order to extend Parks to defendants who were 19 years of age and, if so, whether the Court should overrule it. The Supreme Court directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Bouie (Docket No. 166232) and People v Poole (Docket No. 166813).
––––––––––––––––––––
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
