The Michigan Constitution Podcast

The MI Court of Appeals throws out the conviction of the person trying to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.

This week we got one case opinion regarding Giorgio Webster v. Dr. Jeffrey Osguthorpe and Summit Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. It’s not the underlying medical malpractice case that gets any attention, it’s the Michigan Court Rule which got amended during the 20-months of litigation that the Michigan Supremes addressed.

This week the Michigan Supreme Court handed down one Order in the case of the People of the State of Michigan vs. Allen Michael Sherrill. Five out of six justices denied Sherrill’s appeal from the decision made by the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA). But one justice, Justice Bolden, would have been willing to accept the appeal because she believes the Michigan COA screwed-up one of the four elements reviewed in this case. She believes that the burden shifts from the Defendant to the Prosecutor on element number three. Do you agree with three?

This week the Michigan Supreme Court gave us one case to review. It was The People of Michigan v. Clinton, a criminal case was arose from a contract dispute. The holding here is that Larceny By Conversion was not in play when a housing contractor gave a down payment to a heating & cooling contractor. When a private party contractual dispute arises, a Prosecutor needs to stay in their own lane and deal with actual, legitimate criminal offenses.

This week the Michigan Supreme Court gave us two cases to review.

Stefanski vs. the Saginaw County 911 deals with the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), and whether or not the old school concept of Common Law could be incorporated into the MI WPA for the purposes of suing an employer. Stefanski said he was fired, not because it had too many unauthorized “no show” for work days, but because he was going to “blow the whistle” on his employers for gross negligence. But gross negligence isn’t a listed reason to be protected by the WPA. But it would be if the old common law practice were incorporated into this law.

In re: D. V. Lange addresses two statutory provisions regarding when child custody and the Probate courts can take jurisdiction over a minor child due to a parent’s neglect. Specifically, the issue was whether or not the mother was or was NOT able to care for her child. If should could care for the child, but chose not to, the probate court could take jurisdiction and enter the child into child protective service. But in a head-scratching line of reasoning, the Michigan Supreme Court deemed the mother was unable to care for her child, and so the probate court couldn’t take the minor child into custody.