By Zach Gorchow
Gongwer News Service
The question of where a state department should file litigation will be among the cases argued before the Supreme Court this month.
In Department of Health and Human Services v. NRK RX, Inc. (SC Docket No. 167917), DHHS filed suit against the company in the Ingham Circuit Court after the company refused to pay the more than $500,000 DHHS said it owed for drugs the company failed to show were purchased from an authorized wholesaler.
DHHS filed suit in the Ingham Circuit Court to recover the money. The company moved to change the venue to the Oakland Circuit Court, and the Ingham court agreed. DHHS appealed, and the Court of Appeals denied the agency’s application for leave to appeal. But the Supreme Court ordered the appellate court to rule. It then upheld the change of venue to Oakland in a 2-1 published opinion.
DHHS appealed that decision. The Supreme Court has asked the parties to address how different statutes interact:
Gongwer News Service
The question of where a state department should file litigation will be among the cases argued before the Supreme Court this month.
In Department of Health and Human Services v. NRK RX, Inc. (SC Docket No. 167917), DHHS filed suit against the company in the Ingham Circuit Court after the company refused to pay the more than $500,000 DHHS said it owed for drugs the company failed to show were purchased from an authorized wholesaler.
DHHS filed suit in the Ingham Circuit Court to recover the money. The company moved to change the venue to the Oakland Circuit Court, and the Ingham court agreed. DHHS appealed, and the Court of Appeals denied the agency’s application for leave to appeal. But the Supreme Court ordered the appellate court to rule. It then upheld the change of venue to Oakland in a 2-1 published opinion.
DHHS appealed that decision. The Supreme Court has asked the parties to address how different statutes interact:
• PA 232 of 1919 that says the attorney general can bring any action in the Ingham Circuit Court;
• PA 236 of 1961 that says the county in which the seat of state government is located is a proper county in which to begin actions commenced by the attorney general on behalf of the state;
• MCL 1641(2), which says if more than one cause of action is pleaded or added by amendment and one of the causes of action is personal injury, property damage or wrongful death, venue rules are the same as tort, which generally focus on the defendant’s place of business.
Additionally, the Supreme Court intends to address if tort venue rules apply whether the Court of Appeals properly determined the injury occurred in Oakland County and whether the attorney general can bring actions in the Ingham Circuit on behalf of any state department or only actions where it is the named plaintiff.
Other cases on which the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Jan. 21:
• People v. Jade, where the court will consider an entrapment case involving an arrest made by two sheriff’s departments in an undercover operation through posting an advertisement on an adult escort website called Skip the Games.
• Blackman v. Millward, to address whether an acknowledgement of parentage is binding when the child was born of a nonconsensual sexual act.
• People v. Jackson, whether sentencing guidelines were properly determined in a shooting case
• McCormick v. Michigan State University, where two former Detroit College of Law employees sued for breach of contract after the DCL was merged into MSU.
• Estate of Jacqueline Harris v. Beaumont Health, a medical-malpractice case in which the question of how to amend the witness list is at issue.
• People v. Serges, where the question of whether someone jailed on other charges can claim unreasonable search and seizure while in jail. The defendant was charged with first-degree murder, and later convicted, in the beating death of a neighbor for whom he performed odd jobs. He had denied involvement but was arrested on outstanding misdemeanor warrants.
While jailed, police sent his clothing to the Michigan State Police Crime Laboratory where a small spot of blood on his pants contained the dead woman’s DNA. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction in a published decision.
Additionally, the Supreme Court intends to address if tort venue rules apply whether the Court of Appeals properly determined the injury occurred in Oakland County and whether the attorney general can bring actions in the Ingham Circuit on behalf of any state department or only actions where it is the named plaintiff.
Other cases on which the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Jan. 21:
• People v. Jade, where the court will consider an entrapment case involving an arrest made by two sheriff’s departments in an undercover operation through posting an advertisement on an adult escort website called Skip the Games.
• Blackman v. Millward, to address whether an acknowledgement of parentage is binding when the child was born of a nonconsensual sexual act.
• People v. Jackson, whether sentencing guidelines were properly determined in a shooting case
• McCormick v. Michigan State University, where two former Detroit College of Law employees sued for breach of contract after the DCL was merged into MSU.
• Estate of Jacqueline Harris v. Beaumont Health, a medical-malpractice case in which the question of how to amend the witness list is at issue.
• People v. Serges, where the question of whether someone jailed on other charges can claim unreasonable search and seizure while in jail. The defendant was charged with first-degree murder, and later convicted, in the beating death of a neighbor for whom he performed odd jobs. He had denied involvement but was arrested on outstanding misdemeanor warrants.
While jailed, police sent his clothing to the Michigan State Police Crime Laboratory where a small spot of blood on his pants contained the dead woman’s DNA. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction in a published decision.
