Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

In <em><a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20160203_S152035_69_01_152035_2016-02-03_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">City of Huntington Woods v. City of Oak Park, No. 152035</a></em>, the Michigan Supreme Court granted oral argument on the application to consider whether all cities in a judicial district are required to fund the district court and whether the cities are entitled to revenue sharing of court-imposed fees.&nbsp; The trial court granted partial summary disposition for the defendants, finding that both parties were obligated to fund the district court and that the court funds were not subject to distribution under MCL 600.8379.&nbsp; The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that cities served by a district court located elsewhere must financially support that district court, and that the cities are not entitled to share in court revenues collected for purposes other than prosecution (i.e. fees are not “fines and costs” that must be shared). &nbsp;The Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument on three issues:

contentpilot/introduction

(1) Whether, in the absence of an agreement for joint funding of a district court where the court sits in only one political subdivision, all units within the district are obligated to fund the court;

core/paragraph

(2) Whether the parties in this case agreed that the 45th District Court would be funded entirely by the City of Oak Park; and

(3) Whether revenue from fees collected for the district court is subject to revenue sharing under MCL 600.8379(1)(c).

To read our previous blog post about the Court of Appeals’ opinion, click <a href="https://www.wnj.com/updates/coa-concludes-that-cities-served-by-a-district-court-located-elsewhere-must-financially-support-that-court-and-are-not-entitled-to-share-in-court-revenues-collected-for-purposes-other-than-prosecutio" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.&nbsp;

Partner

Matthew T. “Matt” Nelson

Labor and Employment

MSC grants oral argument to consider scope of district court funding and revenue sharing

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

MSC grants oral argument to consider scope of district court funding and revenue sharing

professionals