The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) will hear oral arguments in ten cases Tuesday through Thursday, March 10-12, beginning at 9:30 a.m. each day. The cases will be heard in the 6th floor courtroom at the Michigan Hall of Justice at 925 W. Ottawa St. in Lansing and will be livestreamed from the MSC website.
The two cases to be heard on Tuesday, March 10, are part of the MSC Court Community Connections program that will bring students from two local high schools to experience oral arguments in person.
The notice of cases is posted on the Supreme Court’s oral arguments web page.
The following brief accounts may not reflect the way that some or all of the court’s seven justices view the case. The attorneys may also disagree about the facts, issues, procedural history, and significance of this case.
—————
Tuesday, March 10
Morning Session – 9:30 a.m.
(Court Community Connections)
167772
JOSEPH CANTY, (attorney Erik J. Stone)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Wayne CC - McCarthy, K.)
MICHAEL CHESTER MASON, (attorney Michael J. Cook)
Defendant-Appellee.
The plaintiff alleges that he was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by the defendant. The plaintiff had his own automobile insurance policy, but he elected not to maintain personal protection insurance coverage, as he was allowed to do under MCL 500.3107d because he had coverage under Medicare parts A and B. He sought to recover allowable expenses for medical treatment in a tort action against the defendant under MCL 500.3135(3)(c). The healthcare providers who treated the plaintiff for his injuries did not bill Medicare for their services and did not charge Medicare rates. The defendant filed a motion for partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing, among other things, that the plaintiff had a common-law duty to mitigate his damages by utilizing his Medicare coverage, and that any recovery of allowable expenses is subject to the fee schedules in MCL 500.3157. The trial court granted the motion in part, but held that the plaintiff did not have a common-law duty to mitigate his damages and that the fee schedules in MCL 500.3157 do not apply in this third-party negligence case. The Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 published opinion, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. Among other things, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff had a common-law duty to mitigate his damages and that the fee schedules in MCL 500.3157 apply in this case. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether a plaintiff seeking allowable expenses for medical treatment in a tort action under MCL 500.3135(3)(c) has a duty to mitigate their damages by seeking payment from Medicare; and (2) whether the fee schedules in MCL 500.3157 apply to a tort action under MCL 500.3135(3)(c).
—————
Tuesday, March 10
Afternoon Session – 12:15 p.m.
(Court Community Connections)
167315
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Autumn Wilmot)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Clare CC - Mienk, R.)
ALEXANDER JAMES HAUPT, (attorney Stuart Friedman)
Defendant-Appellant.
Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of obstruction of justice, four counts of using a computer to commit a crime, two counts of distributing/promoting child sexually abusive material, possession of child sexually abusive material, and child sexually abusive material or activity. The trial court sentenced him to 6.5 to 20 years for child sexually abusive material or activity and lesser sentences for the other convictions. The defendant represented himself with advisory counsel during part of the pretrial proceedings after his retained counsel was allowed to withdraw and his subsequently appointed counsel moved to withdraw. The defendant was represented at trial by appointed counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court held the case in abeyance for People v King, 512 Mich 1 (2023), People v Posey, 512 Mich 317 (2023), and People v Stewart, 512 Mich 472 (2023). Following the decisions in those cases, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of King and Posey. On remand, the Court of Appeals again affirmed the trial court in an unpublished opinion, holding that the defendant was not deprived of counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings such that it constituted a structural error requiring automatic reversal. According to the Court of Appeals, the defendant represented himself with advisory counsel for less than two months, and during that time two hearings took place: (1) a final pretrial hearing and (2) a hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and motion to dismiss, and the prosecutor’s motion to use preliminary examination testimony at trial. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether: (1) the defendant validly waived his right to counsel following defense counsels’ motions to withdraw on October 23, 2018 and June 10, 2019, see People v King, 512 Mich 1, 11-12 (2023); People v Anderson, 398 Mich 361, 367-368 (1976); MCR 6.005(D); (2) the defendant forfeited his right to counsel through his conduct and remarks, see People v Kammeraad, 307 Mich App 98, 130-137 (2014); and (3) if the defendant’s waivers of his right to counsel were not valid and he did not forfeit his right to counsel, do the periods for which the defendant was without counsel constitute critical stages of the proceedings, see King, 512 Mich at 15-16; United States v Wade, 388 US 218, 225-227 (1967); Van v Jones, 475 F3d 292, 312 (CA 6, 2007).
—————
Wednesday, March 11
Morning Session – 9:30 a.m.
168335-9
In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace and Relocate Line 5.
LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS, BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY, GRAND TRAVERSE BAND OF OTTAWA AND CHIPPEWA INDIANS, NOTTAWASEPPIHURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI, and ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER and MICHIGAN CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK, (attorneys Adam J. Ratchenski and David C. Scott)
Appellants,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(MPSC - Scripps, D; Peretick, K.; Carreon, A.)
MPSC, MACKINAC STRAITS CORRIDOR AUTHORITY, MICHIGAN PROPANE GAS ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL PROPANE GAS ASSOCIATION, and MICHIGAN LABORERS’ DISTRICT COUNCIL, (attorneys Daniel E. Sonneveldt, Ashley G. Chrysler, and Megan Boelstler)
Appellees,
and
ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, (attorney John J. Bursch(
Petitioner-Appellee.
Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership applied for authority from the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to construct a tunnel and a four-mile segment of its “Line 5” fuel pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac. The MPSC held a contested case hearing and approved the project, with conditions, in a final order, which made several environmental impact determinations under MCL 324.1705(2) of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). Several intervenors who had participated in the contested case, including a number of tribal nations and environmental groups interested in the protection and preservation of the state’s natural resources or their own fishing and treaty rights, appealed the MPSC’s final order to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in a published opinion. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address whether the Court of Appeals erred by: (1) applying a deferential standard of review rather than determining de novo whether the proposed conduct will pollute, impair, or destroy the air, water, or state’s other natural resources or the public trust in these resources under MCL 324.1705(2) of MEPA, MCL 324.1701 et seq., in accordance with West Mich Environmental Action Council, Inc v Natural Resources Comm, 405 Mich 741, 752-755 (1979); and (2) affirming the MPSC’s limitation on the scope of the evidence to be reviewed regarding its determinations under MCL 324.1705(2) of MEPA and its decision to exclude evidence of the history and risk of oil spills along the entire length of Line 5 in those determinations. The Supreme Court has directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in For Love of Water v MPSC (Docket No. 168346).
—————
168346
In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace and Relocate Line 5.
FOR LOVE OF WATER, (attorney Riyaz A. Kanji)
Appellant,
v
Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(MPSC - Scripps, D.; Peretick, K.; Carreon, A.)
MPSC, MACKINAC STRAITS CORRIDOR
AUTHORITY, MICHIGAN PROPANE GAS ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL PROPANE GAS ASSOCIATION, and MICHIGAN LABORERS’ DISTRICT COUNCIL, (attorneys Daniel E. Sonneveldt, Ashley G. Chrysler, and Megan Boelstler)
Appellees,
and
ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, (attorney John J. Bursch)
Petitioner-Appellee.
Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership applied for authority from the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to construct a tunnel and a four-mile segment of its “Line 5” fuel pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac. The MPSC held a contested case hearing and approved the project, with conditions, in a final order, which made several environmental impact determinations under MCL 324.1705(2) of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). For Love of Water (FLOW), an environmental organization that intervened in the contested case, appealed the MPSC’s final order to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in a published opinion. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address: (1) whether, in enacting MCL 324.1705(2) of MEPA, MCL 324.1701 et seq., the Legislature required the MPSC to comply with the common-law public trust doctrine; (2) if not, whether the common-law public trust doctrine nonetheless requires such compliance, see Glass v Goeckel, 473 Mich 667, 694-696 (2005); and (3) if the MPSC is required to comply with the common-law public trust doctrine, what a proper public trust analysis would entail in MPSC proceedings. The Supreme Court has directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v MPSC (Docket Nos. 168335-9).
—————
167895
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (Montcalm Prosecutor)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Montcalm CC - Kreeger, S.)
DANIELLE HEAVEN-LEAH HESS, (attorney Emma Lawton)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant pleaded guilty to third-degree retail fraud, and the district court sentenced her to 12 months of probation under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA), MCL 762.11 et seq. The district court imposed several conditions of probation, including requirements that the defendant submit to drug testing and refrain from possessing or using marijuana. While on probation, the defendant twice tested positive for marijuana. The first time, she pleaded guilty to violating probation. The district court extended her term of probation by six months and ordered her to serve additional community service. The second time, she moved to amend the terms of her probation and dismiss her probation violations, arguing that the condition barring her from use of marijuana that is compliant with the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., is unlawful and unenforceable. The district court rejected that argument and determined that the defendant violated a lawful term of her probation. The court revoked her HYTA status and sentenced her to 10 days in jail. The defendant claimed an appeal of right in the circuit court, which stayed the jail sentence pending appeal. The circuit court ultimately affirmed the district court, but left the stay order in place pending further appeals. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed in a published opinion. It reasoned that it is a mandatory condition of every probationary sentence that “the probationer shall not violate any criminal law of . . . the United States[.]” MCL 771.3(1)(a). The court further reasoned that although using recreational marijuana may be permissible in Michigan, it is prohibited by federal law. Accordingly, the court held that the defendant violated lawfully imposed terms of her probation. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address: (1) whether MCL 771.3(1)(a), which makes it a mandatory condition of probation that “the probationer shall not violate any criminal law of . . . the United States,” requires trial courts to bar probationers from engaging in marijuana use that is otherwise permitted by the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq.; and (2) if not, whether and under what circumstances a trial court may prohibit MRTMA-compliant marijuana use as a discretionary condition of probation under MCL 771.3(3). The Supreme Court has directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Lopez-Hernandez (Docket No. 167529).
—————
166766
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Mark Sanford)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Berrien CC - Schrock, S.)
JAMES ELLIS, JR., (attorney Jessica Zimbelman)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant pleaded guilty to attempted unarmed robbery. The trial court sentenced him to 1 to 5 years in prison and ordered him to register as a Tier III sex offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., pursuant to the “recapture” provision of MCL 28.723(1)(e), on the basis of his 1983 sex-offense conviction in Illinois. The defendant brought a post-sentencing motion to correct an invalid sentence, arguing that SORA’s “recapture” provision (1) does not apply to him because he does not reside in Michigan, (2) amounts to ex post facto punishment, and (3) amounts to cruel or unusual punishment. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether MCL 28.723(1)(e), the “recapture” provision of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., as amended by 2020 PA 295, effective March 24, 2021, constitutes ex post facto punishment under the United States or Michigan Constitutions, US Const, art I, § 9; Const 1963, art 1, § 10, see People v Betts, 507 Mich 527 (2021); (2) whether requiring the defendant to register as a sex offender under MCL 28.723(1)(e) and MCL 28.721 et seq., constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16, or US Const, Am VIII, see People v Lymon, 514 Mich ___ (July 29, 2024) (Docket No. 164685), and People v Kardasz, 513 Mich 1118 (2024) (ordering oral argument on the application for leave to appeal in Docket No. 165008); (3) whether the defendant’s out-of-state residency and the conditional application of SORA while the defendant remains an out-of-state resident renders the constitutional issues here not ripe for review; (4) for ex post facto purposes, whether it is the later, nonsexual offense that triggers SORA registration rather than the earlier sexual offense, see People v Klinesmith, 342 Mich App 39 (2022); (5) how, if at all, the sexual nature of the prior unregistered sex offense affects the determination whether recapture is cruel or unusual punishment, or punishment at all; and (6) assuming arguendo that the focus of the recapture inquiry is properly on the earlier sex offense, whether the defendant’s entitlement to relief on ex post facto grounds depends on this Court’s decision in Kardasz. The Supreme Court has directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Klinesmith (Docket No. 164649)
—————
Thursday, March 12
Morning Session – 9:30 a.m.
168483
BRIAN ZEZULA, (attorney Daniel A. Groves)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Oakland CC - Matthews, C.)
NINA BROWN and DTE ENERGY COMPANY, (attorneys Brian Catrinar and Karen G. Szoke)
Defendants,
and
KALTZ EXCAVATING CO., INC., (attorney Michael F. Schmidt)
Defendant-Appellee,
and
INDEPENDENCE TOWNSHIP OF OAKLAND COUNTY, (attorney Margaret T. Debler)
Defendant-Appellant,
While underground electrical work was being performed on a neighboring property, the plaintiff’s underground sewage lead was punctured, resulting in sewage and waste flooding into his drainage pipes. The plaintiff brought a lawsuit for negligence against the neighbor, DTE Energy Company, and DTE’s contractor, Kaltz Excavating Co., Inc. The plaintiff amended his complaint to add Independence Township as a party defendant. The Township moved for summary disposition, arguing that it was immune from tort liability under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, MCL 691.1401 et seq. The trial court denied summary disposition, finding that the Township was not entitled to governmental immunity for violations of the MISS DIG Underground Facility Damage and Safety Act, MCL 460.721 et seq. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a 2-1 published opinion. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address whether: (1) MCL 691.1407(7) of the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq., creates a broad exception to governmental immunity when a governmental agency allegedly violates the MISS DIG Underground Facility Damage and Safety Act, MCL 460.721 et seq.; and (2) the Oakland Circuit Court erred in permitting plaintiff-appellee Brian Zezula to amend his complaint on the basis that defendant-appellant Independence Township’s alleged failure to mark facilities constitutes a “defect” as that term is defined in MCL 691.1416(e) and a compensable “sewer disposal system event” under MCL 691.1417 for purposes of the sewage disposal system event exception to governmental immunity under the GTLA.
167899
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Elizabeth Allen)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Ingham CC - Aquilina, R.)
JOHN HAROLD SANDERS, (attorney Mary Chartier)
Defendant-Appellant.
On Friday, January 4, 2013, the defendant brought his three-month-old daughter to the hospital with traumatic brain injuries, and she died later that day. The defendant was arrested that same day, while on the following Monday, January 7, 2013, he made inconsistent statements to Detective Mark Lewandowsky before he was arraigned later that day. Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of first-degree child abuse and first-degree felony murder. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to life imprisonment without parole for first-degree felony murder and 50 to 100 years for first-degree child abuse. The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentences in an unpublished opinion. In 2015, the Supreme Court denied the defendant’s application for leave to appeal. In 2022, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment and granted him a new trial on the basis that he was denied the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. In 2024, the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to admit the statements that defendant made to Detective Lewandowsky. Those statements were not admitted at the defendant’s first trial because the trial court had ruled them inadmissible in light of the delay between his arrest and arraignment. The defendant appealed that decision, but the Court of Appeals denied his application for leave to appeal for failure to persuade it of the need for immediate appellate review. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) the proper analysis for determining whether statements made while detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment under Riverside Co v McLaughlin, 500 US 44 (1991), should be suppressed; (2) whether People v Manning, 243 Mich App 615 (2000), was correctly decided; and (3) whether the trial court clearly erred in concluding that the defendant’s statements were voluntary. See People v Cipriano, 431 Mich 315 (1988).
168243
EXCLUSIVE CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, (attorney Anthony J. Bologna)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Oakland CC - Brennan, M.)
CITY OF ROYAL OAK, (attorney Anne M. McLaughlin)
Defendant-Appellant.
—————
QUALITY ROOTS, INC., (attorney William DiSessa)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Oakland CC - Brennan, M.)
CITY OF ROYAL OAK, (attorney Anne M. McLaughlin)
Defendant-Appellant,
and
PGSH HOLDINGS, LLC,
Intervening Defendant-Appellee.
The City of Royal Oak adopted a recreational marijuana ordinance allowing for two retail licenses. The City received 31 applications, including applications from Exclusive Capital Partners, LLC and Quality Roots, Inc. The city manager chose two other applicants to receive the retail licenses. Quality Roots and Exclusive Capital brought separate lawsuits against the City, alleging various claims, including that the City violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq. The trial court granted the City’s motions for summary disposition with respect to all of the claims, and Quality Roots and Exclusive Capital filed separate appeals, which were consolidated by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, reversed the grant of summary disposition on the OMA claims, but otherwise affirmed the trial court on the other issues. The Court of Appeals held that an OMA violation occurred and remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of the remedy for the violation. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether the City of Royal Oak’s city manager was a “public body” as defined by MCL 15.262(a), subject to the Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.261 et seq.
The two cases to be heard on Tuesday, March 10, are part of the MSC Court Community Connections program that will bring students from two local high schools to experience oral arguments in person.
The notice of cases is posted on the Supreme Court’s oral arguments web page.
The following brief accounts may not reflect the way that some or all of the court’s seven justices view the case. The attorneys may also disagree about the facts, issues, procedural history, and significance of this case.
—————
Tuesday, March 10
Morning Session – 9:30 a.m.
(Court Community Connections)
167772
JOSEPH CANTY, (attorney Erik J. Stone)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Wayne CC - McCarthy, K.)
MICHAEL CHESTER MASON, (attorney Michael J. Cook)
Defendant-Appellee.
The plaintiff alleges that he was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by the defendant. The plaintiff had his own automobile insurance policy, but he elected not to maintain personal protection insurance coverage, as he was allowed to do under MCL 500.3107d because he had coverage under Medicare parts A and B. He sought to recover allowable expenses for medical treatment in a tort action against the defendant under MCL 500.3135(3)(c). The healthcare providers who treated the plaintiff for his injuries did not bill Medicare for their services and did not charge Medicare rates. The defendant filed a motion for partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing, among other things, that the plaintiff had a common-law duty to mitigate his damages by utilizing his Medicare coverage, and that any recovery of allowable expenses is subject to the fee schedules in MCL 500.3157. The trial court granted the motion in part, but held that the plaintiff did not have a common-law duty to mitigate his damages and that the fee schedules in MCL 500.3157 do not apply in this third-party negligence case. The Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 published opinion, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. Among other things, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff had a common-law duty to mitigate his damages and that the fee schedules in MCL 500.3157 apply in this case. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether a plaintiff seeking allowable expenses for medical treatment in a tort action under MCL 500.3135(3)(c) has a duty to mitigate their damages by seeking payment from Medicare; and (2) whether the fee schedules in MCL 500.3157 apply to a tort action under MCL 500.3135(3)(c).
—————
Tuesday, March 10
Afternoon Session – 12:15 p.m.
(Court Community Connections)
167315
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Autumn Wilmot)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Clare CC - Mienk, R.)
ALEXANDER JAMES HAUPT, (attorney Stuart Friedman)
Defendant-Appellant.
Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of obstruction of justice, four counts of using a computer to commit a crime, two counts of distributing/promoting child sexually abusive material, possession of child sexually abusive material, and child sexually abusive material or activity. The trial court sentenced him to 6.5 to 20 years for child sexually abusive material or activity and lesser sentences for the other convictions. The defendant represented himself with advisory counsel during part of the pretrial proceedings after his retained counsel was allowed to withdraw and his subsequently appointed counsel moved to withdraw. The defendant was represented at trial by appointed counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court held the case in abeyance for People v King, 512 Mich 1 (2023), People v Posey, 512 Mich 317 (2023), and People v Stewart, 512 Mich 472 (2023). Following the decisions in those cases, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of King and Posey. On remand, the Court of Appeals again affirmed the trial court in an unpublished opinion, holding that the defendant was not deprived of counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings such that it constituted a structural error requiring automatic reversal. According to the Court of Appeals, the defendant represented himself with advisory counsel for less than two months, and during that time two hearings took place: (1) a final pretrial hearing and (2) a hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and motion to dismiss, and the prosecutor’s motion to use preliminary examination testimony at trial. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether: (1) the defendant validly waived his right to counsel following defense counsels’ motions to withdraw on October 23, 2018 and June 10, 2019, see People v King, 512 Mich 1, 11-12 (2023); People v Anderson, 398 Mich 361, 367-368 (1976); MCR 6.005(D); (2) the defendant forfeited his right to counsel through his conduct and remarks, see People v Kammeraad, 307 Mich App 98, 130-137 (2014); and (3) if the defendant’s waivers of his right to counsel were not valid and he did not forfeit his right to counsel, do the periods for which the defendant was without counsel constitute critical stages of the proceedings, see King, 512 Mich at 15-16; United States v Wade, 388 US 218, 225-227 (1967); Van v Jones, 475 F3d 292, 312 (CA 6, 2007).
—————
Wednesday, March 11
Morning Session – 9:30 a.m.
168335-9
In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace and Relocate Line 5.
LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS, BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY, GRAND TRAVERSE BAND OF OTTAWA AND CHIPPEWA INDIANS, NOTTAWASEPPIHURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI, and ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER and MICHIGAN CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK, (attorneys Adam J. Ratchenski and David C. Scott)
Appellants,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(MPSC - Scripps, D; Peretick, K.; Carreon, A.)
MPSC, MACKINAC STRAITS CORRIDOR AUTHORITY, MICHIGAN PROPANE GAS ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL PROPANE GAS ASSOCIATION, and MICHIGAN LABORERS’ DISTRICT COUNCIL, (attorneys Daniel E. Sonneveldt, Ashley G. Chrysler, and Megan Boelstler)
Appellees,
and
ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, (attorney John J. Bursch(
Petitioner-Appellee.
Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership applied for authority from the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to construct a tunnel and a four-mile segment of its “Line 5” fuel pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac. The MPSC held a contested case hearing and approved the project, with conditions, in a final order, which made several environmental impact determinations under MCL 324.1705(2) of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). Several intervenors who had participated in the contested case, including a number of tribal nations and environmental groups interested in the protection and preservation of the state’s natural resources or their own fishing and treaty rights, appealed the MPSC’s final order to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in a published opinion. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address whether the Court of Appeals erred by: (1) applying a deferential standard of review rather than determining de novo whether the proposed conduct will pollute, impair, or destroy the air, water, or state’s other natural resources or the public trust in these resources under MCL 324.1705(2) of MEPA, MCL 324.1701 et seq., in accordance with West Mich Environmental Action Council, Inc v Natural Resources Comm, 405 Mich 741, 752-755 (1979); and (2) affirming the MPSC’s limitation on the scope of the evidence to be reviewed regarding its determinations under MCL 324.1705(2) of MEPA and its decision to exclude evidence of the history and risk of oil spills along the entire length of Line 5 in those determinations. The Supreme Court has directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in For Love of Water v MPSC (Docket No. 168346).
—————
168346
In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace and Relocate Line 5.
FOR LOVE OF WATER, (attorney Riyaz A. Kanji)
Appellant,
v
Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(MPSC - Scripps, D.; Peretick, K.; Carreon, A.)
MPSC, MACKINAC STRAITS CORRIDOR
AUTHORITY, MICHIGAN PROPANE GAS ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL PROPANE GAS ASSOCIATION, and MICHIGAN LABORERS’ DISTRICT COUNCIL, (attorneys Daniel E. Sonneveldt, Ashley G. Chrysler, and Megan Boelstler)
Appellees,
and
ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, (attorney John J. Bursch)
Petitioner-Appellee.
Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership applied for authority from the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to construct a tunnel and a four-mile segment of its “Line 5” fuel pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac. The MPSC held a contested case hearing and approved the project, with conditions, in a final order, which made several environmental impact determinations under MCL 324.1705(2) of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). For Love of Water (FLOW), an environmental organization that intervened in the contested case, appealed the MPSC’s final order to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in a published opinion. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address: (1) whether, in enacting MCL 324.1705(2) of MEPA, MCL 324.1701 et seq., the Legislature required the MPSC to comply with the common-law public trust doctrine; (2) if not, whether the common-law public trust doctrine nonetheless requires such compliance, see Glass v Goeckel, 473 Mich 667, 694-696 (2005); and (3) if the MPSC is required to comply with the common-law public trust doctrine, what a proper public trust analysis would entail in MPSC proceedings. The Supreme Court has directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v MPSC (Docket Nos. 168335-9).
—————
167895
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (Montcalm Prosecutor)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Montcalm CC - Kreeger, S.)
DANIELLE HEAVEN-LEAH HESS, (attorney Emma Lawton)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant pleaded guilty to third-degree retail fraud, and the district court sentenced her to 12 months of probation under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA), MCL 762.11 et seq. The district court imposed several conditions of probation, including requirements that the defendant submit to drug testing and refrain from possessing or using marijuana. While on probation, the defendant twice tested positive for marijuana. The first time, she pleaded guilty to violating probation. The district court extended her term of probation by six months and ordered her to serve additional community service. The second time, she moved to amend the terms of her probation and dismiss her probation violations, arguing that the condition barring her from use of marijuana that is compliant with the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., is unlawful and unenforceable. The district court rejected that argument and determined that the defendant violated a lawful term of her probation. The court revoked her HYTA status and sentenced her to 10 days in jail. The defendant claimed an appeal of right in the circuit court, which stayed the jail sentence pending appeal. The circuit court ultimately affirmed the district court, but left the stay order in place pending further appeals. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed in a published opinion. It reasoned that it is a mandatory condition of every probationary sentence that “the probationer shall not violate any criminal law of . . . the United States[.]” MCL 771.3(1)(a). The court further reasoned that although using recreational marijuana may be permissible in Michigan, it is prohibited by federal law. Accordingly, the court held that the defendant violated lawfully imposed terms of her probation. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address: (1) whether MCL 771.3(1)(a), which makes it a mandatory condition of probation that “the probationer shall not violate any criminal law of . . . the United States,” requires trial courts to bar probationers from engaging in marijuana use that is otherwise permitted by the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq.; and (2) if not, whether and under what circumstances a trial court may prohibit MRTMA-compliant marijuana use as a discretionary condition of probation under MCL 771.3(3). The Supreme Court has directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Lopez-Hernandez (Docket No. 167529).
—————
166766
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Mark Sanford)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Berrien CC - Schrock, S.)
JAMES ELLIS, JR., (attorney Jessica Zimbelman)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant pleaded guilty to attempted unarmed robbery. The trial court sentenced him to 1 to 5 years in prison and ordered him to register as a Tier III sex offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., pursuant to the “recapture” provision of MCL 28.723(1)(e), on the basis of his 1983 sex-offense conviction in Illinois. The defendant brought a post-sentencing motion to correct an invalid sentence, arguing that SORA’s “recapture” provision (1) does not apply to him because he does not reside in Michigan, (2) amounts to ex post facto punishment, and (3) amounts to cruel or unusual punishment. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether MCL 28.723(1)(e), the “recapture” provision of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., as amended by 2020 PA 295, effective March 24, 2021, constitutes ex post facto punishment under the United States or Michigan Constitutions, US Const, art I, § 9; Const 1963, art 1, § 10, see People v Betts, 507 Mich 527 (2021); (2) whether requiring the defendant to register as a sex offender under MCL 28.723(1)(e) and MCL 28.721 et seq., constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16, or US Const, Am VIII, see People v Lymon, 514 Mich ___ (July 29, 2024) (Docket No. 164685), and People v Kardasz, 513 Mich 1118 (2024) (ordering oral argument on the application for leave to appeal in Docket No. 165008); (3) whether the defendant’s out-of-state residency and the conditional application of SORA while the defendant remains an out-of-state resident renders the constitutional issues here not ripe for review; (4) for ex post facto purposes, whether it is the later, nonsexual offense that triggers SORA registration rather than the earlier sexual offense, see People v Klinesmith, 342 Mich App 39 (2022); (5) how, if at all, the sexual nature of the prior unregistered sex offense affects the determination whether recapture is cruel or unusual punishment, or punishment at all; and (6) assuming arguendo that the focus of the recapture inquiry is properly on the earlier sex offense, whether the defendant’s entitlement to relief on ex post facto grounds depends on this Court’s decision in Kardasz. The Supreme Court has directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Klinesmith (Docket No. 164649)
—————
Thursday, March 12
Morning Session – 9:30 a.m.
168483
BRIAN ZEZULA, (attorney Daniel A. Groves)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Oakland CC - Matthews, C.)
NINA BROWN and DTE ENERGY COMPANY, (attorneys Brian Catrinar and Karen G. Szoke)
Defendants,
and
KALTZ EXCAVATING CO., INC., (attorney Michael F. Schmidt)
Defendant-Appellee,
and
INDEPENDENCE TOWNSHIP OF OAKLAND COUNTY, (attorney Margaret T. Debler)
Defendant-Appellant,
While underground electrical work was being performed on a neighboring property, the plaintiff’s underground sewage lead was punctured, resulting in sewage and waste flooding into his drainage pipes. The plaintiff brought a lawsuit for negligence against the neighbor, DTE Energy Company, and DTE’s contractor, Kaltz Excavating Co., Inc. The plaintiff amended his complaint to add Independence Township as a party defendant. The Township moved for summary disposition, arguing that it was immune from tort liability under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, MCL 691.1401 et seq. The trial court denied summary disposition, finding that the Township was not entitled to governmental immunity for violations of the MISS DIG Underground Facility Damage and Safety Act, MCL 460.721 et seq. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a 2-1 published opinion. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address whether: (1) MCL 691.1407(7) of the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq., creates a broad exception to governmental immunity when a governmental agency allegedly violates the MISS DIG Underground Facility Damage and Safety Act, MCL 460.721 et seq.; and (2) the Oakland Circuit Court erred in permitting plaintiff-appellee Brian Zezula to amend his complaint on the basis that defendant-appellant Independence Township’s alleged failure to mark facilities constitutes a “defect” as that term is defined in MCL 691.1416(e) and a compensable “sewer disposal system event” under MCL 691.1417 for purposes of the sewage disposal system event exception to governmental immunity under the GTLA.
167899
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Elizabeth Allen)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Ingham CC - Aquilina, R.)
JOHN HAROLD SANDERS, (attorney Mary Chartier)
Defendant-Appellant.
On Friday, January 4, 2013, the defendant brought his three-month-old daughter to the hospital with traumatic brain injuries, and she died later that day. The defendant was arrested that same day, while on the following Monday, January 7, 2013, he made inconsistent statements to Detective Mark Lewandowsky before he was arraigned later that day. Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of first-degree child abuse and first-degree felony murder. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to life imprisonment without parole for first-degree felony murder and 50 to 100 years for first-degree child abuse. The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentences in an unpublished opinion. In 2015, the Supreme Court denied the defendant’s application for leave to appeal. In 2022, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment and granted him a new trial on the basis that he was denied the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. In 2024, the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to admit the statements that defendant made to Detective Lewandowsky. Those statements were not admitted at the defendant’s first trial because the trial court had ruled them inadmissible in light of the delay between his arrest and arraignment. The defendant appealed that decision, but the Court of Appeals denied his application for leave to appeal for failure to persuade it of the need for immediate appellate review. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) the proper analysis for determining whether statements made while detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment under Riverside Co v McLaughlin, 500 US 44 (1991), should be suppressed; (2) whether People v Manning, 243 Mich App 615 (2000), was correctly decided; and (3) whether the trial court clearly erred in concluding that the defendant’s statements were voluntary. See People v Cipriano, 431 Mich 315 (1988).
168243
EXCLUSIVE CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, (attorney Anthony J. Bologna)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Oakland CC - Brennan, M.)
CITY OF ROYAL OAK, (attorney Anne M. McLaughlin)
Defendant-Appellant.
—————
QUALITY ROOTS, INC., (attorney William DiSessa)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Oakland CC - Brennan, M.)
CITY OF ROYAL OAK, (attorney Anne M. McLaughlin)
Defendant-Appellant,
and
PGSH HOLDINGS, LLC,
Intervening Defendant-Appellee.
The City of Royal Oak adopted a recreational marijuana ordinance allowing for two retail licenses. The City received 31 applications, including applications from Exclusive Capital Partners, LLC and Quality Roots, Inc. The city manager chose two other applicants to receive the retail licenses. Quality Roots and Exclusive Capital brought separate lawsuits against the City, alleging various claims, including that the City violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq. The trial court granted the City’s motions for summary disposition with respect to all of the claims, and Quality Roots and Exclusive Capital filed separate appeals, which were consolidated by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, reversed the grant of summary disposition on the OMA claims, but otherwise affirmed the trial court on the other issues. The Court of Appeals held that an OMA violation occurred and remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of the remedy for the violation. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether the City of Royal Oak’s city manager was a “public body” as defined by MCL 15.262(a), subject to the Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.261 et seq.
––––––––––––––––––––
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
