By Kelly Caplan
BridgeTower Media Newswires
A sister’s suit against her brother for knee injuries she sustained after being prodded to take a ride on his self-installed zip line is one of 12 cases on the Michigan Supreme Court’s schedule for April oral arguments.
Seven cases are on tap for Wednesday, April 7, with five more set for Thursday, April 8.
Cases will be argued via Zoom; oral arguments will be livestreamed on the court’s YouTube page, https://www.youtube.com/user/MichiganCourts.
Information below is based on case summaries provided by the Michigan courts. Further details about all of the cases can be found on the court’s website.
Wednesday, April 7 morning session
Jeff Trecha, as next friend of Bradley Trecha v. Brendan Remillard – Bradley and Brendan were teammates on a high school tennis team. After losing the final point in a match during team practice, Brendan hit a tennis ball behind him toward a fence, not realizing that Bradley was standing there. The ball hit Bradley in the eye and caused significant damage.
Assuming Bradley was a participant in the recreational activity of tennis when his injuries occurred, oral arguments will address whether the particular risk that caused his injuries was reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances.
Daniel Krolczyk v. Hyundai Motor America – Oral arguments will address, in part, whether the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over this case where, upon transfer, the complaint contained an ad damnum clause seeking more than the district court’s jurisdictional limit.
People v. Erick Rosean Allen – Arguments will discuss if the Michigan Supreme Court’s holding in People v. Idziak includes parolees who are arrested for a new offense but are not subject to a parole detainer and, if so, whether that part of Idziak’s holding was decided correctly.
David A. Maples v. State of Michigan – In this Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act case, the Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion the Court of Claims’ grant of summary disposition to the defendant, saying Maples failed to satisfy the definition of “new evidence.” To be addressed in oral arguments is whether the evidence submitted is “new evidence” under MCL 691.1752(b). The court has directed the Attorney General to file separate supplemental briefs arguing both sides of the question presented.
Saron E. Marquardt v. Vellaiah Durai Umashankar, M.D. – Arguments will address whether the decedent failed to give Umashankar notice as required by MCL 600.2912b, by way of notice mailed on July 20, 2009, on the ground that the notice was not addressed or directed to him.
Wednesday, April 7 afternoon session
Doreen Rott v. Arthur Rott – Doreen brought premises liability and negligence claims against her brother Arthur after she was allegedly injured by a zip line on his property. Doreen challenges if the recreational land use act, or RUA, applies.
Arguments in the case will focus on if the Court of Appeals erred in its application of the law of the case doctrine, as well as the proper interpretation of the “for the purpose of” language in the RUA and if zip lining falls within the RUA’s purview.
People v. Gregory Carl Washington – Arguments will address, in part, whether the trial court’s act of resentencing the defendant while an application for leave to appeal was pending in the Supreme Court constituted a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction and, if so, if defects in subject-matter jurisdiction can be challenged in a successive motion for relief from judgment.
Thursday, April 8 morning session
Vernon Bowman, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Kelly M. Bowman v. St. John Hospital and Medical Center, Ascension Medical Group Michigan and Tushar S. Parikh, M.D. – Oral arguments will discuss, in part, if the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Solowy v. Oakwood Hosp. Corp. adopted the correct standard for application of the six-month discovery rule set forth in MCL 600.5838a(2) and what standard should be adopted if not.
Maria Orta v. Lisa Keeney – In this guardianship matter, arguments will focus on whether In re Ferranti applies to guardianship proceedings, and if a parent must intend that his or her child permanently reside with another person to establish a guardianship under MCL 700.5204(2)(b).
People v. Ernesto Evaristo Uribe – Arguments will address, in part, whether a doctor’s testimony about the complainant’s statements to him was admissible under the medical treatment exception to the hearsay rule and, if an error occurred, whether reversal of the defendant’s convictions is warranted.
Esurance Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Michigan Assigned Claims Plan and Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility – Oral arguments will address whether a finding that an insurance policy was void ab initio because it was procured by fraud bars a subsequent claim for equitable subrogation for benefits that were paid pursuant to that policy before it was found to be void.
Susan Moore, guardian/conservator for the Estate of Joseph Daniel Velez Jr. v. Shafer, R. Shafer Builders, Revocable Living Trust Agreement and Hensley Manufacturing Inc. – Joseph Velez Jr. was injured when he fell off the flat roof of an industrial building while performing roofing work. The appellate court unanimously affirmed summary disposition in favor of the general contractor on the plaintiff’s common work area doctrine claim.
But in a 2-1 decision, it reversed summary disposition on the premises liability claim raised against the building owners. Arguments will address whether the Court of Appeals erred when it found that genuine issues of material fact precluded dismissal of the plaintiff’s premises liability claim.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
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
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://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
