By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
The Supreme Court will consider its past precedent concerning the Consumer Protection Act in one of its first big cases of the 2024-25 term, which begins next week with a round of oral arguments before the bench.
Justices will hear arguments in Attorney General v. Eli Lilly and Company (MSC Docket No. 165961) at 9:30 a.m. Thursday, October 10. The case is among 11 to be heard by the bench on October 9 and October 10 beginning in the morning on both days. The first case on the schedule will be presented in the old Supreme Court chambers at the Capitol, which is the current Senate Appropriations Room. The remaining cases will be presented in the Supreme Court’s chambers at the Hall of Justice.
The cases will be livestreamed on the Michigan Senate TV live channel.
Eli Lilly involves Attorney General Dana Nessel, who has been working to get the Supreme Court to consider her case and potentially reverse past decisions as she wants the Department of Attorney General to investigate insulin pricing at Eli Lilly and Company. She first had to go through the Court of Appeals, which ruled in June 2023 that only the Supreme Court can reverse its decisions.
Lower courts ruled two previous Supreme Court decisions mean Eli Lilly is authorized by law to manufacture and sell insulin, so therefore that practice cannot be investigated under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. The previous court rulings mean the act’s protections only applied to unregulated industries.
The Supreme Court is being asked whether those decisions – Smith v. Globe Life Insurance Company (1999) and Liss v Lewiston-Richards, Inc. (2007) – were correctly decided and if not, if they should otherwise be retained.
Nessel’s office is arguing the decisions were incorrect.
The following cases will be heard beginning 9:30 a.m. October 9:
• Hark Orchids LP v. Buie & Benham PC (MSC Docket No. 165761): The case involves a legal malpractice claim arising out of a workers’ compensation dispute. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, holding that the damages sought by the plaintiff were not appropriate. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The high court has been asked to determine whether there is a basis on which attorney fees may be recoverable damages absent allegations of malicious, fraudulent or similarly wrongful conduct; and whether the trial court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary disposition.
• Encompass Healthcare PLLC v. Citizens Insurance Company (MSC Docket No. 165321): In this case involving the timeliness of a no-fault benefits lawsuit, the trial court found that there was no basis for tolling the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed in a published opinion and found that the period was tolled, and recovery was not barred. The high court has been asked to determine whether the defendant waived its challenge to the retroactive application of the law, and whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the tolling provision of the one-year-back rule, among other questions.
• The argument in Encompass will be heard alongside Spine Specialists of Michigan PC v. MemberSelect Insurance Company (MSC Docket No. 165445), which is asking the court a similar question regarding the timeliness of a no-fault benefits lawsuit.
• Heos v. City of East Lansing (MSC Docket No. 165763): The case involves the defendant city and its agreement with the Lansing Board of Water and Light to pay a franchise fee. The plaintiff argued that fee was an impermissible tax imposed in violation of the Headlee Amendment and the Foote Act. The trial court granted partial summary disposition to the plaintiff when the city argued the complaint was time barred by the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision and held the complaint was time barred. The high court has been asked to determine whether the criteria for determining when a pass-through fee imposed by a local government on a business or utility should be considered a tax paid by a customer; and whether, in the context of a utility rate, a utility customer may challenge an improper pass-through fee as an improper rate in an action against the utility, among several other questions.
• In Re DV Lange (MSC Docket No. 166509): In this parenting rights case, the trial court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the minor in question, but the Court of Appeals reversed in a 2-1 unpublished opinion, holding the trial court erred when it failed to assume jurisdiction. The high court has been asked to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly found that the trial court should have assumed jurisdiction over the minor child under the circumstances of the case; and whether In re Hockett was correctly decided.
• People v. Wimberly (MSC Docket No. 165229): A dispute over resentencing in a criminal sexual conduct case, the trial court denied a motion to invalid the new sentence, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. Although the case had already once been before the high court, which the bench denied leave to appeal in 2022, the court has been asked to determine whether the imposition of consecutive sentences in this case violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions because the criminal conduct preceded the amendment to MCL 750.520b that authorized consecutive sentences; and, if so, whether the appropriate remedy is to grant the defendant a new sentencing hearing or to direct the sentencing court to amend the judgment of sentence to reflect concurrent sentences.
The following cases will be heard on October 10 after the Eli Lilly arguments, which will begin at 9:30 a.m.:
• People v. McKewen (MSC Docket No. 158869): The case involves a double-jeopardy argument in relation to an assault with intent to do great bodily harm conviction. The high court has been asked to determine whether conviction for both assault with intent to do great bodily harm and felonious assault violates the constitutional double-jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense where MCL 750.84 requires intent ‘to do great bodily harm,’ and MCL 750.82 applies where an assault is committed ‘without intending to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder,’ but also where MCL 750.84(3) states ‘this section does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law arising out of the same conduct as the violation of this section.’”
• People v. Gardner (MSC Docket No. 163124) and People v. Fredell (MSC Docket No. 164098) will both be heard during the same session as McKewen because they involved similar questions of the application of double jeopardy prohibitions.
• Dine Brands Global/Walt Disney Company v. Eubanks (MSC Docket Nos. 165391-2): the cases involve America’s favorite mouse versus the director of the Department of Treasury – a pair of tricky tax disputes that are at least as complicated as trying to plan out a day at one of the Walt Disney theme parks – dealing with the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. The cases had been appealed up to the Michigan Supreme Court twice before. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed its position that the Oakland Circuit Court erred when it granted summary disposition to Walt Disney Company on a request for reconsideration. The high court has been asked to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act.
Gongwer News Service
The Supreme Court will consider its past precedent concerning the Consumer Protection Act in one of its first big cases of the 2024-25 term, which begins next week with a round of oral arguments before the bench.
Justices will hear arguments in Attorney General v. Eli Lilly and Company (MSC Docket No. 165961) at 9:30 a.m. Thursday, October 10. The case is among 11 to be heard by the bench on October 9 and October 10 beginning in the morning on both days. The first case on the schedule will be presented in the old Supreme Court chambers at the Capitol, which is the current Senate Appropriations Room. The remaining cases will be presented in the Supreme Court’s chambers at the Hall of Justice.
The cases will be livestreamed on the Michigan Senate TV live channel.
Eli Lilly involves Attorney General Dana Nessel, who has been working to get the Supreme Court to consider her case and potentially reverse past decisions as she wants the Department of Attorney General to investigate insulin pricing at Eli Lilly and Company. She first had to go through the Court of Appeals, which ruled in June 2023 that only the Supreme Court can reverse its decisions.
Lower courts ruled two previous Supreme Court decisions mean Eli Lilly is authorized by law to manufacture and sell insulin, so therefore that practice cannot be investigated under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. The previous court rulings mean the act’s protections only applied to unregulated industries.
The Supreme Court is being asked whether those decisions – Smith v. Globe Life Insurance Company (1999) and Liss v Lewiston-Richards, Inc. (2007) – were correctly decided and if not, if they should otherwise be retained.
Nessel’s office is arguing the decisions were incorrect.
The following cases will be heard beginning 9:30 a.m. October 9:
• Hark Orchids LP v. Buie & Benham PC (MSC Docket No. 165761): The case involves a legal malpractice claim arising out of a workers’ compensation dispute. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, holding that the damages sought by the plaintiff were not appropriate. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The high court has been asked to determine whether there is a basis on which attorney fees may be recoverable damages absent allegations of malicious, fraudulent or similarly wrongful conduct; and whether the trial court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary disposition.
• Encompass Healthcare PLLC v. Citizens Insurance Company (MSC Docket No. 165321): In this case involving the timeliness of a no-fault benefits lawsuit, the trial court found that there was no basis for tolling the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed in a published opinion and found that the period was tolled, and recovery was not barred. The high court has been asked to determine whether the defendant waived its challenge to the retroactive application of the law, and whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the tolling provision of the one-year-back rule, among other questions.
• The argument in Encompass will be heard alongside Spine Specialists of Michigan PC v. MemberSelect Insurance Company (MSC Docket No. 165445), which is asking the court a similar question regarding the timeliness of a no-fault benefits lawsuit.
• Heos v. City of East Lansing (MSC Docket No. 165763): The case involves the defendant city and its agreement with the Lansing Board of Water and Light to pay a franchise fee. The plaintiff argued that fee was an impermissible tax imposed in violation of the Headlee Amendment and the Foote Act. The trial court granted partial summary disposition to the plaintiff when the city argued the complaint was time barred by the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision and held the complaint was time barred. The high court has been asked to determine whether the criteria for determining when a pass-through fee imposed by a local government on a business or utility should be considered a tax paid by a customer; and whether, in the context of a utility rate, a utility customer may challenge an improper pass-through fee as an improper rate in an action against the utility, among several other questions.
• In Re DV Lange (MSC Docket No. 166509): In this parenting rights case, the trial court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the minor in question, but the Court of Appeals reversed in a 2-1 unpublished opinion, holding the trial court erred when it failed to assume jurisdiction. The high court has been asked to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly found that the trial court should have assumed jurisdiction over the minor child under the circumstances of the case; and whether In re Hockett was correctly decided.
• People v. Wimberly (MSC Docket No. 165229): A dispute over resentencing in a criminal sexual conduct case, the trial court denied a motion to invalid the new sentence, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. Although the case had already once been before the high court, which the bench denied leave to appeal in 2022, the court has been asked to determine whether the imposition of consecutive sentences in this case violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions because the criminal conduct preceded the amendment to MCL 750.520b that authorized consecutive sentences; and, if so, whether the appropriate remedy is to grant the defendant a new sentencing hearing or to direct the sentencing court to amend the judgment of sentence to reflect concurrent sentences.
The following cases will be heard on October 10 after the Eli Lilly arguments, which will begin at 9:30 a.m.:
• People v. McKewen (MSC Docket No. 158869): The case involves a double-jeopardy argument in relation to an assault with intent to do great bodily harm conviction. The high court has been asked to determine whether conviction for both assault with intent to do great bodily harm and felonious assault violates the constitutional double-jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense where MCL 750.84 requires intent ‘to do great bodily harm,’ and MCL 750.82 applies where an assault is committed ‘without intending to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder,’ but also where MCL 750.84(3) states ‘this section does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law arising out of the same conduct as the violation of this section.’”
• People v. Gardner (MSC Docket No. 163124) and People v. Fredell (MSC Docket No. 164098) will both be heard during the same session as McKewen because they involved similar questions of the application of double jeopardy prohibitions.
• Dine Brands Global/Walt Disney Company v. Eubanks (MSC Docket Nos. 165391-2): the cases involve America’s favorite mouse versus the director of the Department of Treasury – a pair of tricky tax disputes that are at least as complicated as trying to plan out a day at one of the Walt Disney theme parks – dealing with the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. The cases had been appealed up to the Michigan Supreme Court twice before. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed its position that the Oakland Circuit Court erred when it granted summary disposition to Walt Disney Company on a request for reconsideration. The high court has been asked to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://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
