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

On Friday, January 29, 2010, the Court cleared its docket by denying leave to appeal in 137 cases and denying reconsideration in an additional 22 cases. The Court granted leave in three cases which are addressed in a separate post. The Court held <a title="Order holding case in abeyance" href="http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20100129_S139121_19_139121_2010-01-29_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">People v. Wilkinson</a> in abeyance pending the Court's resolution of People v. Feezel. The Court remanded the following cases:

contentpilot/introduction

<a title="Remand Order" href="http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20100129_S139521_39_139521_2010-01-29_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">People v. Hicks</a>: In a case involving egregious evidence of child sexual abuse, the Court vacated the portion of the Court of Appeals' decision requiring the case to be assigned to a new circuit judge for re-sentencing but otherwise denied leave to appeal. Justices Corrigan and Weaver would have reversed the Court of Appeals' decision in its entirety because they believed that the circuit court had adequately justified a significant upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Warning—Justice Corrigan's dissent contains an explicit description of the defendant's conduct.

core/paragraph

<a title="Remand Order" href="http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20100129_S139335_56_139335_2010-01-29_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Duskin v. Department of Human Services</a>: The Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration of that court's class-certification order in light of the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in <a title="OCJ Blog Post" href="http://www.ocjblog.com/'p=2350" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Henry v. Dow Chemical Co</a>. Justices Corrigan and Young dissented because they believed that the Court's decision in Henry would not change the correct result—denial of class certification.

<a title="Remand Order" href="http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20100129_S139118_11_139118_2010-01-29_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">People v. Gilmore</a>: The Court remanded the case so that the Wayne County Circuit Court could address the defendant's motion to disqualify the judge before addressing the defendant's motion for relief from judgment.

<a title="Remand Order" href="http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20100129_S139060_26_139060_2010-01-29_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">People v. Barbarich</a>: In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals as on leave granted. Justice Cavanagh would have denied leave to appeal.

The Court entered an <a title="Clarification Order" href="http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20100129_S137409_87_137409_2010-01-29_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">order</a> clarifying its <a title="Remand Order" href="http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/sct/public/orders/20091021_s137409_84_137409_2009-10-21_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">October 22, 2009 order</a> remanding Shember v. University of Michigan Medical Center to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of <a title="OCJ Blog Post" href="http://www.ocjblog.com/'p=2297" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bush v. Shabahang</a>.

The Court also ordered the Oakland County Prosecutor to respond to the application for leave in <a title="Order Requiring Response to Application" href="http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20100129_S139142_22_139142_2010-01-29_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">People v. Mathis</a> to address whether the defendant had established cause in prejudice under MCR 6.508(D) in the event the defendant had identified scoring error in his criminal sentence.

Partner

Matthew T. “Matt” Nelson

MSC Order List:  January 29, 2010

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 Order List: January 29, 2010

professionals