Source: http://www.wnj.com/Blogs/Appellate/May-2017
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:48:18+00:00

Document:
In the consolidated cases City of Holland v. Consumers Energy Co., No. 151053, and City of Coldwater v. Consumers Energy Co., No. 151051, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a utility’s right to first entitlement, which gives the first utility company serving a facility the right to provide for the entire load to the customer, does not apply to municipally owned utilities that have not consented to the Michigan Public Service Commission’s (“MPSC”) jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court held that customers may receive electric utility services from municipal corporations provided that the customer is not currently receiving services from another utility.
When a homicide or homicide-related crime causes psychological injury to a victim’s family member such that the family member may require treatment, the defendant is hit with fifteen additional sentencing points. In the consolidated cases of People v Calloway, Nos. 153636 & 153751, the Michigan Supreme Court held that these sentencing points can be assessed regardless of whether the family member has actually sought psychological treatment—allowing courts to determine on their own whether a crime objectively requires psychological treatment.
When police officers take someone’s photograph and fingerprints, such conduct does not “clearly violate” a constitution right, thus immunity remained in place and shielded the officers from civil liability, said the Michigan Court of Appeals in Johnson v. Vanderkooi, No. 330536.
In Citizens Ins Co of America v. University Physician Grp, No 328553, the Court of Appeals found when a plaintiff, seeking to enforce rights to indemnity or reimbursement, uses the word “reimbursement” in a complaint against a third party provider defendant(s) under the assigned claims system, the 2-year statute of limitations under MCL 500.3175(3) governs the proceedings.
In Flanagin v. Kalkaska Co Road Comm'n, No. 330887, the Court of Appeals held that statutory provisions that allowed state vehicles to cross the centerline while engaged in work on a roadway would not provide immunity against allegations of negligence. While a snowplow may not be committing a moving violation when plowing by being over the centerline, they can still be negligent. The facts at issue indicated it was possible that the snowplow was between four and six feet over the centerline, and thus there was a genuine issue of material fact as to alleged negligent conduct justifying the trial court's denial of summary disposition.
In Martin v. Milham Meadows, No.154360, the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument as to whether reasonable minds could differ regarding whether an internal stairway, which was overly slippery because of the paint applied, was fit for its intended use and kept in reasonable repair.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.