Gongwer News Service
A dispute over access to Macomb County's financial software programs, which was to be provided to the county's director of legislative affairs via an appropriations ordinance adopted by the Macomb Board of Commissioners in 2017, will be one of 11 cases before the Michigan Supreme Court in oral arguments scheduled next week.
It’s one of four cases on the court’s docket that originated in Macomb County.
The high court will hear Hackel v. Macomb County Board of Commissioners (MSC Docket No. 166363) during a session scheduled Wednesday and Thursday April 9-10. Oral arguments begin on both days at 9:30 a.m. and will be livestreamed on the Supreme Court's website.
Hackel is to be heard during the afternoon session on April 9, along with Macomb County Prosecutor v. Macomb County Executive (MSC Docket No. 167415).
Hackel asserts that County Executive Mark Hackel is responsible for presenting a balanced budget to the board, and in 2017, the latter adopted general appropriations ordinances requiring the executive to give its director of legislative affairs real-time, read-only access to the county's integrated financial software programs.
Hackel refused to do so, according to the complaint, which the board said interfered with its ability to adopt appropriations ordinances.
Hackel sued the board, but for an unrelated issue, in which the board filed a countercomplaint seeking a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus ordering Hackel to furnish the legislative affairs director with access to the programs.
The Macomb Circuit Court granted partial summary disposition to Hackel regarding the countercomplaint, ruling that requiring Hackel to do so unlawfully infringed on his authority to supervise, coordinate, direct and control the Macomb County Finance Department.
The trial court dismissed the remaining claims in the countercomplaint by stipulation of the parties.
Still, the board challenged the ruling, but the Court of Appeals in a split 2-1 unpublished opinion affirmed the circuit court's decision. The high court has now been asked to determine if Hackel was required to hand over access to the programs. In Macomb County Prosecutor, the complaint surrounds a 2024 appropriations ordinance including a $42,500 line item for contract services for the prosecutor's office.
The money was for prelitigation services. Hackel vetoed the line item, saying he couldn't enforce the appropriation because it was contrary to the county's charter – a similar argument being ferreted out in Hackel.
The board overrode Hackel's veto and adopted a resolution for five contracts with legal practices. Hackel again refused to appropriate the funding. The prosecutor's office sued the executive office, filing the complaint directly to the Court of Appeals pursuant to the Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act, seeking declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief.
The Court of Appeals in a published opinion granted the prosecutor's office mandamus relief and ordered Hackel to deliver the appropriation.
Upon appeal, the high court is being asked the same questions in Hackel as it relates to the dispute in Macomb County Prosecutor.
Other cases being heard on April 9 include:
Markiewicz v. Markiewicz (MSC Docket No. 166782): A divorce dispute dealing with frozen leftover in vitro fertilization embryos, the case involves a plaintiff who wanted the embryo in question to be used in the future and a defendant who wanted the embryo destroyed because he did not want another child born from the woman with his DNA.
The Macomb Circuit Court held that the embryo was marital property and defendant's request should be granted. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to consider if there was a valid agreement before the divorce on the matter, but the trial court's evidentiary hearing on the matter showed there was no valid agreement, leading the court to again side with the defendant. The appellate court affirmed the decision, and the high court has been asked to determine whether a prior agreement with the storage facility was properly construed.
Rayford v. American House Roseville I LLC (MSC Docket No. 163989): This case, from Macomb County, deals with an alleged unlawful termination due to allegations that the plaintiff made a false police report about her purse being stolen at the nursing care facility where she was previously employed.
The case came before the Supreme Court for oral arguments once before and granted leave to appeal after hearing arguments in November 2023. The high court has been asked to determine whether Clark v. DaimlerChrysler Corp properly extended the high court's holding in Rory v. Continental Insurance Company to employment contracts, and if not, whether the contract at issue in this case was an unconscionable contract of adhesion.
People v. Tadgerson (MSC Docket No. 165578): A prison drug possession case, the defendant asked the Court of Appeals to dismiss his conviction, which came as a conditional guilty plea of a prisoner in possession of a controlled substance. That allowed him to argue that the crime required the prosecution to prove he had knowingly possessed the drugs. He had argued that a fellow inmate slipped a folder containing the drugs into his cell door slot without his knowledge.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and now asks the high court if the offense he was charged with was one of strict liability or if it needed an element of a knowing, guilty conscience to be tried on the crime.
People v. Jennings (MSC Docket No. 165764): A mistrial in the defendant's concealed weapon trial led the defendant to argue that retrying him would amount to double jeopardy.
The Macomb Circuit Court allowed him to be retried, and the second trial resulted in a conviction. He appealed on the same grounds, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The high court has been asked to determine what standard the court should apply to conclude whether prosecutorial misconduct bars retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The following cases will be heard on April 10:
Jackson v. Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (MSC Docket No. 166320): This case deals with the fallout of the Supreme Court's decision in Rafaeli v. Oakland County, which held that when real property is taken to satisfy an unpaid tax debt, the government's retention of surplus proceeds of the tax-foreclosure sale is a form of unconstitutional taking and the former property owner is entitled to just compensation.
The case at hand asks the Supreme Court if Rafaeli applies and if the General Property Tax Act applies retroactively. If not, the high court is asked to determine if holding the proceeds in the case is a government taking circumstance when there was not public auction for the foreclosed property and the local unit of government buys the property, resulting in no surplus funds. The case is to be heard in the same session as Yono v. Ingham County (MSC Docket No. 166791), which deals with the same similar circumstances.
Davis v. BetMGM LLC (MSC Docket No. 166281): The case deals with a significant amount of money won playing an online betting game on one of the defendant's services. The plaintiff withdrew $100,000 of her winnings, the defendant suspended the account and made her unable to access the remaining account, which was around $3.2 million. An investigation commenced and the defendant determined the account had been erroneously credited due to an error and closed her account.
The plaintiff sued for fraud and breach of contract, but the Wayne County Circuit Court ruled it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Lawful Internet Gambling Act preempted the plaintiff's claims. Meanwhile, a complaint was made with the Michigan Gaming Control Board . The Court of Appeals in a 2-1 published decision affirmed the circuit court. The high court has been asked to determine whether the court lacked jurisdiction and if the MGCB had jurisdiction over the matter.
Markel v. William Beaumont Hospital (MSC Docket No. 166702): A malpractice case in which the Oakland Circuit Court granted summary disposition for the hospital because the plaintiff could not establish ostensible agency. The Court of Appeals initially denied leave to appeal, but the Supreme Court remanded the case with an order for consideration on leave granted.
The appellate panel affirmed the decision. The high court heard the case again and reversed the appellate panel, remanding the case once more. On remand, the appellate panel again affirmed the trial court. Justices of the high court are now being asked to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the ostensible agency test set forth in Grewe v Mount Clemens General Hospital and whether Beaumont is entitled to summary disposition of the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim that is premised on vicarious liability for the alleged negligence.
People v. Carson (MSC Docket No. 166923): The defendant in this case was convicted for various larceny charges. At trial, incriminating text messages were presented as being found during a search of the defendant's phone. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions in a 2-1 published opinion.
The high court has been asked to determine if the appellate panel erred by holding that the warrant to search the defendant's cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, and by failing to sever any valid portions of the search warrant from any invalid portions, among other questions.
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Three-County & Full Pass also available
