By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
A challenge to the Court of Appeals’ 2024 holding that the Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee lacked standing to sue members of the Flint Board of Election Commissioners for allegedly violating election law will be the subject of oral arguments before the Michigan Supreme Court next month.
The high court has scheduled oral arguments for March 12 and March 13 in MIGOP v. Donahue (MSC Docket No. 166973) and 10 additional cases, several of them dealing with challenges to criminal sexual conduct proceedings and sentences handed down after conviction.
Arguments will begin at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, March 12, and Thursday, March 13. The cases will commence in person but will be livestreamed on the court’s website.
In Donahue, the state and national party said the Flint Board of Election Commissioners did not appoint “as nearly as possible” the same amount of election inspectors from each major party in the 2022 primary and general elections.
The Court of Appeals in March 2024 ruled in a 2-1 published opinion that the plaintiffs lacked standing and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendants Flint City Clerk Davina Donahue, former Flint City Attorney William Kim and Flint City Assessor Stacie Kaake. All three are members of the city’s Board of Election Commissioners. The opinion was written by Judge Michael Kelly and joined by Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett.
Former Judge Kathleen Jansen wrote a dissenting opinion, in which she would have vacated the Genesee Circuit Court’s ruling on standing.
The Supreme Court will determine whether the lower courts erred by holding that neither plaintiff has standing, and more specifically whether the statutory scheme governing the appointment of election inspectors clearly implies that the Legislature intended to confer standing on the major political parties to enforce the partisan-parity mandate of Election Law. The court also will examine whether either plaintiff has standing to seek a writ of mandamus based on a special injury, right, or substantial interest and whether either plaintiff has standing to seek a declaratory judgment because it meets the requirements under court rules.
The case will be heard on March 13 at the end of the morning session.
Cases to be heard on March 12 include:
• People v. Masi (MSC Docket No. 165620): a criminal sexual conduct case dealing with a defendant charged with 12 counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. The defendant attempted to have evidence thrown out, including that the victims were sexually abused by another person before they were in his care and that two of the complainants viewed pornography. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision to exclude the evidence under the rape shield statute, but the appellate court remanded to determine whether some evidence was still admissible. The high court has been asked to determine whether the evidence at a hand was protected under the rape shield if it is admissible.
• Village of Kalkaska v. Michigan Municipal League Liability and Property Pool (MSC Docket No. 166213): The case deals with a contract between the village and some of its employees to provide lifetime retirement benefits. The village decided in 2014 that it could no longer afford to pay the benefits, and the village council voted to discontinue them. A lawsuit followed on contract breach grounds. The village then sued its insurer, for failing to defend and indemnify the village against the claims. The Kalkaska Circuit Court denied the MML’s motion for summary disposition citing questions of fact. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and granted summary disposition for the village. The high court has been asked to determine whether the insurance policy provides coverage for the claims at issue that arose from the plaintiff’s 2014 Resolution Discontinuing Trust and Agency Fund and Retirees’ Health Insurance; and whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for the plaintiff.
• People v. Martin (MSC Docket No. 166339): the defendant in this case was convicted of one first- and second-degree CSC predicated on the victim being under 13 years old and the defendant being older than 17 years old. The trial court required lifetime electronic monitoring, which was the subject of his appeal. He argued the monitoring violated constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure. The trial court declined to vacate the sentence modifier citing People v. Hallak. The Court of Appeals affirmed also citing Hallak. The high court has been asked to determine whether lifetime electronic monitoring imposed without an individual assessment of recidivism risk and without a pathway to have the monitor removed constitutes a violation of the Eighth and Fourth amendments.
• People v. Kardasz (MSC Docket No. 165008): This case, a major challenge to the Sex Offender Registration Act, is going to be heard at the same time as Martin because it deals with similar circumstances. The high court has been asked to determine whether the lifetime requirement to be registered on the sex offender registry is unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment as well as whether electronic monitoring imposed without an individual assessment of recidivism risk and without a pathway to have the monitor removed violates the Eighth and Fourth amendments.
• McDuffie v. Neal (MSC Docket No. 166865-6): The case involves a person who died in a collision with a dump truck owned by construction company. A lawsuit commenced for negligence and wrongful death and later included a motion for sanctions against the company for spoiling evidence and destroying key business records. It also sold the dump truck in question. The trial court granted the motion, struck the company’s affirmative defenses and order sanctions. A motion for summary disposition filed by the company was denied. A 2-1 Court of Appeals ruling vacated the lower court’s holding and remanded for summary disposition in the company’s favor. The high court has been asked to determine if there was genuine issue of fact as to whether the company breached its duty of care and if the trial court abused its discretion by issuing sanctions.
• People v. Boven (MSC Docket No. 165805): The defendant in this case pleaded guilty to delivery of methamphetamine and challenged the calculation of his minimum sentence guidelines. The Court of Appeals denied the application for leave to appeal, and the high court has been asked to determine whether the Emmet Circuit Court properly scored the defendant’s prior record variables.
• People v. Clinton (MSC Docket No. 166210): This case deals with a dispute over an agreement to install a heating and cooling unit in a residential property. The equipment was not installed and the defendant took the deposit. He was charged and convicted of larceny at a bench trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The high court has been asked to determine whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction for larceny by conversion under law, and specifically whether the evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant converted the complainant’s property “to his own use.”
Additional cases to be March 13 include:
• People v. Carson (MSC Docket No. 166923): The defendant in this case was convicted by a jury of safe breaking, larceny and concealing stolen property. Incriminating text messages were found in a search of the defendant’s phone. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions on ineffective counsel grounds. The Supreme Court has been asked to determine wither the Court of Appeals erred by holding the warrant to search the phone violated the Fourth Amendment, among other questions.
• Melvin Berlin Revocable Trust v. Rubin (MSC Docket No. 166228): Short-term rentals and their permissibility under the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions in the Swift Estates area of Berrien County are at the heart of the dispute in this case. A lawsuit was filed to seek a holding that short-term rentals were not allowed in the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the declaration. The Berrien Circuit Court granted summary disposition for the plaintiffs and enjoined the defendants from renting out their properties a short-term stays. The Court of Appeals affirmed and the high court has been asked to determine whether a restrictive covenant limiting lot use to “single family residence purposes” unambiguously prohibits all short-term residential rentals.
• Resort Properties Co-Operative v. Township of Waterloo (MSC Docket No. 166642): The appellant in this case owns a parcel of lakefront vacation property in Waterloo Township. The dispute deals with the taxable value of the property, an applicable assessment and the transfer of owner interest. The owners challenged the assessment and appealed the uncapping of the assessment to the Tax Tribunal, which agreed with the township’s formulation. The Court of Appeals affirmed and the high court has been asked to determine whether the Tax Tribunal erred by holding that 68 percent of the ownership interest in the petitioner’s corporation had been transferred.
Gongwer News Service
A challenge to the Court of Appeals’ 2024 holding that the Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee lacked standing to sue members of the Flint Board of Election Commissioners for allegedly violating election law will be the subject of oral arguments before the Michigan Supreme Court next month.
The high court has scheduled oral arguments for March 12 and March 13 in MIGOP v. Donahue (MSC Docket No. 166973) and 10 additional cases, several of them dealing with challenges to criminal sexual conduct proceedings and sentences handed down after conviction.
Arguments will begin at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, March 12, and Thursday, March 13. The cases will commence in person but will be livestreamed on the court’s website.
In Donahue, the state and national party said the Flint Board of Election Commissioners did not appoint “as nearly as possible” the same amount of election inspectors from each major party in the 2022 primary and general elections.
The Court of Appeals in March 2024 ruled in a 2-1 published opinion that the plaintiffs lacked standing and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendants Flint City Clerk Davina Donahue, former Flint City Attorney William Kim and Flint City Assessor Stacie Kaake. All three are members of the city’s Board of Election Commissioners. The opinion was written by Judge Michael Kelly and joined by Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett.
Former Judge Kathleen Jansen wrote a dissenting opinion, in which she would have vacated the Genesee Circuit Court’s ruling on standing.
The Supreme Court will determine whether the lower courts erred by holding that neither plaintiff has standing, and more specifically whether the statutory scheme governing the appointment of election inspectors clearly implies that the Legislature intended to confer standing on the major political parties to enforce the partisan-parity mandate of Election Law. The court also will examine whether either plaintiff has standing to seek a writ of mandamus based on a special injury, right, or substantial interest and whether either plaintiff has standing to seek a declaratory judgment because it meets the requirements under court rules.
The case will be heard on March 13 at the end of the morning session.
Cases to be heard on March 12 include:
• People v. Masi (MSC Docket No. 165620): a criminal sexual conduct case dealing with a defendant charged with 12 counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. The defendant attempted to have evidence thrown out, including that the victims were sexually abused by another person before they were in his care and that two of the complainants viewed pornography. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision to exclude the evidence under the rape shield statute, but the appellate court remanded to determine whether some evidence was still admissible. The high court has been asked to determine whether the evidence at a hand was protected under the rape shield if it is admissible.
• Village of Kalkaska v. Michigan Municipal League Liability and Property Pool (MSC Docket No. 166213): The case deals with a contract between the village and some of its employees to provide lifetime retirement benefits. The village decided in 2014 that it could no longer afford to pay the benefits, and the village council voted to discontinue them. A lawsuit followed on contract breach grounds. The village then sued its insurer, for failing to defend and indemnify the village against the claims. The Kalkaska Circuit Court denied the MML’s motion for summary disposition citing questions of fact. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and granted summary disposition for the village. The high court has been asked to determine whether the insurance policy provides coverage for the claims at issue that arose from the plaintiff’s 2014 Resolution Discontinuing Trust and Agency Fund and Retirees’ Health Insurance; and whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for the plaintiff.
• People v. Martin (MSC Docket No. 166339): the defendant in this case was convicted of one first- and second-degree CSC predicated on the victim being under 13 years old and the defendant being older than 17 years old. The trial court required lifetime electronic monitoring, which was the subject of his appeal. He argued the monitoring violated constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure. The trial court declined to vacate the sentence modifier citing People v. Hallak. The Court of Appeals affirmed also citing Hallak. The high court has been asked to determine whether lifetime electronic monitoring imposed without an individual assessment of recidivism risk and without a pathway to have the monitor removed constitutes a violation of the Eighth and Fourth amendments.
• People v. Kardasz (MSC Docket No. 165008): This case, a major challenge to the Sex Offender Registration Act, is going to be heard at the same time as Martin because it deals with similar circumstances. The high court has been asked to determine whether the lifetime requirement to be registered on the sex offender registry is unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment as well as whether electronic monitoring imposed without an individual assessment of recidivism risk and without a pathway to have the monitor removed violates the Eighth and Fourth amendments.
• McDuffie v. Neal (MSC Docket No. 166865-6): The case involves a person who died in a collision with a dump truck owned by construction company. A lawsuit commenced for negligence and wrongful death and later included a motion for sanctions against the company for spoiling evidence and destroying key business records. It also sold the dump truck in question. The trial court granted the motion, struck the company’s affirmative defenses and order sanctions. A motion for summary disposition filed by the company was denied. A 2-1 Court of Appeals ruling vacated the lower court’s holding and remanded for summary disposition in the company’s favor. The high court has been asked to determine if there was genuine issue of fact as to whether the company breached its duty of care and if the trial court abused its discretion by issuing sanctions.
• People v. Boven (MSC Docket No. 165805): The defendant in this case pleaded guilty to delivery of methamphetamine and challenged the calculation of his minimum sentence guidelines. The Court of Appeals denied the application for leave to appeal, and the high court has been asked to determine whether the Emmet Circuit Court properly scored the defendant’s prior record variables.
• People v. Clinton (MSC Docket No. 166210): This case deals with a dispute over an agreement to install a heating and cooling unit in a residential property. The equipment was not installed and the defendant took the deposit. He was charged and convicted of larceny at a bench trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The high court has been asked to determine whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction for larceny by conversion under law, and specifically whether the evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant converted the complainant’s property “to his own use.”
Additional cases to be March 13 include:
• People v. Carson (MSC Docket No. 166923): The defendant in this case was convicted by a jury of safe breaking, larceny and concealing stolen property. Incriminating text messages were found in a search of the defendant’s phone. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions on ineffective counsel grounds. The Supreme Court has been asked to determine wither the Court of Appeals erred by holding the warrant to search the phone violated the Fourth Amendment, among other questions.
• Melvin Berlin Revocable Trust v. Rubin (MSC Docket No. 166228): Short-term rentals and their permissibility under the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions in the Swift Estates area of Berrien County are at the heart of the dispute in this case. A lawsuit was filed to seek a holding that short-term rentals were not allowed in the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the declaration. The Berrien Circuit Court granted summary disposition for the plaintiffs and enjoined the defendants from renting out their properties a short-term stays. The Court of Appeals affirmed and the high court has been asked to determine whether a restrictive covenant limiting lot use to “single family residence purposes” unambiguously prohibits all short-term residential rentals.
• Resort Properties Co-Operative v. Township of Waterloo (MSC Docket No. 166642): The appellant in this case owns a parcel of lakefront vacation property in Waterloo Township. The dispute deals with the taxable value of the property, an applicable assessment and the transfer of owner interest. The owners challenged the assessment and appealed the uncapping of the assessment to the Tax Tribunal, which agreed with the township’s formulation. The Court of Appeals affirmed and the high court has been asked to determine whether the Tax Tribunal erred by holding that 68 percent of the ownership interest in the petitioner’s corporation had been transferred.
––––––––––––––––––––
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
