By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Supreme Court will hear arguments on the retroactivity of a decision requiring a one-year notice for lawsuits against the state in all venues when it opens its new term next week.
On Oct. 7-8, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in several cases and an annual report of the court. As per tradition, it will hold its first arguments on Oct. 8 in the now Senate Appropriations Committee room, which was once the home of the high court.
Hudson v. Corrections (MSC Docket No. 169021) will be heard by the court on Oct. 8. at 9:30 a.m. Justices are hearing arguments in the case after the Court of Appeals convened a conflict panel as several decisions conflicted with each other.
The case surrounds the notice period required for lawsuits against the state. In 2020, the Court of Appeals, in Tyrell v. University of Michigan, ruled the law outlining the notice requirement applied only to Court of Claims proceedings. It was overruled by the Supreme Court two and a half years later in Christie v. Wayne State University, when that court said the one-year rule applied in all venues – the Court of Claims and local circuit courts.
In 2024, the Court of Appeals issued three decisions on the retroactivity of the Christie decision, one of those being the Hudson case that is now before the Supreme Court. The conflict panel ruled Christie had full retroactive effect.
Hudson was filed in a circuit court before Christie was decided.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether Christie should apply retroactively.
Other cases being heard by the court will begin at 9:30 a.m. at the Capitol on Oct. 7. After the first argument, the court will move back to the Hall of Justice to finish hearing arguments.
Johnson v. Best Buy Company, Inc. (Docket No. 169404), which involves a challenge to the company’s arbitration policy. The court ordered arguments on whether the adhesion contract analysis in Rayford v American House Roseville I, LLC, applies to determine the enforceability of the arbitration policy at issue, and whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the application of Rayford to the facts of this case.
Demott v. VHS Harper-Hutzel Hospital, Inc. (Docket No.168977), a case brought by the Estate of Kenneth Pionk, III, argued negligence led to Pionk’s death a few days after he was born. The estate sought loss of services damages under the Wrongful Death Act. The court ordered arguments on whether the law allows recovery of damages for the loss of a decedent’s household services and, specifically, for loss of services of a minor child after the age of majority. Additionally, the court will mull whether a claim for lost services by an infant decedent is too speculative and if such a claim is permitted under the WDA as a matter of law and is not inherently too speculative, whether it is necessary for the plaintiff to show a reasonable expectation of services.
In re NDD, Minor (Docket No. 169064), which involves a juvenile who had been adjudicated for several offenses before the family court waived jurisdiction after an incident when the minor was 17. The court ordered oral arguments on if the court erred in waiving jurisdiction and whether, in deciding whether to waive its jurisdiction over the respondent, the family court was required to compare the relative suitability of programs and facilities available in the juvenile and adult correctional systems, among other questions.
In re Pawloski, Minors (Docket No. 168651), where the justices will hear arguments on whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the respondent’s release of her parental rights was knowing and voluntary.
LeDuke v. City of South Haven (Docket No. 169198), where the estate of Brandon Chambers is suing the city of South Haven after he drowned at the city beach. The estate argues the city is not entitled to governmental immunity because it operates the beach for a profit. The trial court ruled there was a genuine issue of fact, and the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling for the city. The Supreme Court ordered oral argument to address whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that there is no question of fact regarding the application of the proprietary function exception to governmental immunity.
On Thursday following Hudson, the court will hear:
Linda Molitoris v. Saint Mary Magdalen Catholic Church (Docket No. 166699), is a negligence and premises liability case that was filed after the plaintiff slipped on ice in the church’s parking lot. The court will hear arguments on whether it should adopt the Third Restatement of Torts’ reasonable-care standard in lieu of traditional status-based categories to determine a premises possessor’s duty to persons who suffer physical harm caused by a condition on the land, among other questions.
Kuilema v. Calvin University (Docket No. 168943). In this case, the plaintiff lost employment with Calvin University and claimed it was because they had recently officiated a same-sex wedding. The court will hear arguments on whether the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act provides a cause of action for sex-based associational discrimination, and, if so, whether the plaintiff adequately pled such a claim.
Michigan Gas Utilities Corporation v. Midlam, Jr. et. al. (Docket No. 168634-9), where plaintiff Michigan Gas Utilities Corporation applied for a certificate of public convenience and necessity with the Public Service Commission to construct a pipeline to replace an existing pipeline in Calhoun County. The utility unsuccessfully sought parcels of land through good faith offers and then court action, but did not include one entity that leased portions of the land. The project has since been completed but the court is considering a series of arguments about jurisdiction.
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Supreme Court will hear arguments on the retroactivity of a decision requiring a one-year notice for lawsuits against the state in all venues when it opens its new term next week.
On Oct. 7-8, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in several cases and an annual report of the court. As per tradition, it will hold its first arguments on Oct. 8 in the now Senate Appropriations Committee room, which was once the home of the high court.
Hudson v. Corrections (MSC Docket No. 169021) will be heard by the court on Oct. 8. at 9:30 a.m. Justices are hearing arguments in the case after the Court of Appeals convened a conflict panel as several decisions conflicted with each other.
The case surrounds the notice period required for lawsuits against the state. In 2020, the Court of Appeals, in Tyrell v. University of Michigan, ruled the law outlining the notice requirement applied only to Court of Claims proceedings. It was overruled by the Supreme Court two and a half years later in Christie v. Wayne State University, when that court said the one-year rule applied in all venues – the Court of Claims and local circuit courts.
In 2024, the Court of Appeals issued three decisions on the retroactivity of the Christie decision, one of those being the Hudson case that is now before the Supreme Court. The conflict panel ruled Christie had full retroactive effect.
Hudson was filed in a circuit court before Christie was decided.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether Christie should apply retroactively.
Other cases being heard by the court will begin at 9:30 a.m. at the Capitol on Oct. 7. After the first argument, the court will move back to the Hall of Justice to finish hearing arguments.
Johnson v. Best Buy Company, Inc. (Docket No. 169404), which involves a challenge to the company’s arbitration policy. The court ordered arguments on whether the adhesion contract analysis in Rayford v American House Roseville I, LLC, applies to determine the enforceability of the arbitration policy at issue, and whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the application of Rayford to the facts of this case.
Demott v. VHS Harper-Hutzel Hospital, Inc. (Docket No.168977), a case brought by the Estate of Kenneth Pionk, III, argued negligence led to Pionk’s death a few days after he was born. The estate sought loss of services damages under the Wrongful Death Act. The court ordered arguments on whether the law allows recovery of damages for the loss of a decedent’s household services and, specifically, for loss of services of a minor child after the age of majority. Additionally, the court will mull whether a claim for lost services by an infant decedent is too speculative and if such a claim is permitted under the WDA as a matter of law and is not inherently too speculative, whether it is necessary for the plaintiff to show a reasonable expectation of services.
In re NDD, Minor (Docket No. 169064), which involves a juvenile who had been adjudicated for several offenses before the family court waived jurisdiction after an incident when the minor was 17. The court ordered oral arguments on if the court erred in waiving jurisdiction and whether, in deciding whether to waive its jurisdiction over the respondent, the family court was required to compare the relative suitability of programs and facilities available in the juvenile and adult correctional systems, among other questions.
In re Pawloski, Minors (Docket No. 168651), where the justices will hear arguments on whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the respondent’s release of her parental rights was knowing and voluntary.
LeDuke v. City of South Haven (Docket No. 169198), where the estate of Brandon Chambers is suing the city of South Haven after he drowned at the city beach. The estate argues the city is not entitled to governmental immunity because it operates the beach for a profit. The trial court ruled there was a genuine issue of fact, and the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling for the city. The Supreme Court ordered oral argument to address whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that there is no question of fact regarding the application of the proprietary function exception to governmental immunity.
On Thursday following Hudson, the court will hear:
Linda Molitoris v. Saint Mary Magdalen Catholic Church (Docket No. 166699), is a negligence and premises liability case that was filed after the plaintiff slipped on ice in the church’s parking lot. The court will hear arguments on whether it should adopt the Third Restatement of Torts’ reasonable-care standard in lieu of traditional status-based categories to determine a premises possessor’s duty to persons who suffer physical harm caused by a condition on the land, among other questions.
Kuilema v. Calvin University (Docket No. 168943). In this case, the plaintiff lost employment with Calvin University and claimed it was because they had recently officiated a same-sex wedding. The court will hear arguments on whether the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act provides a cause of action for sex-based associational discrimination, and, if so, whether the plaintiff adequately pled such a claim.
Michigan Gas Utilities Corporation v. Midlam, Jr. et. al. (Docket No. 168634-9), where plaintiff Michigan Gas Utilities Corporation applied for a certificate of public convenience and necessity with the Public Service Commission to construct a pipeline to replace an existing pipeline in Calhoun County. The utility unsuccessfully sought parcels of land through good faith offers and then court action, but did not include one entity that leased portions of the land. The project has since been completed but the court is considering a series of arguments about jurisdiction.
––––––––––––––––––––
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
