Source: http://www.wnj.com/Blogs/Appellate/October-2014
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:55:25+00:00

Document:
In Spartan Stores, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, No. 314669, the Court of Appeals answered a question of first impression and held that a “party in interest” under Michigan’s Tax Tribunal Act, MCL 205.735a(6), includes persons or entities with any property interest in the property being assessed, thus allowing both owners and specified leaseholders to challenge tax assessments directly to the Tax Tribunal.
The Court of Appeals and Court of Claims Clerk's Offices will be staffed until 9:00 p.m. on Election Day to respond as necessary to any election related matters that arise. While the offices will not be open to the public, staff will be available by phone. To contact either Clerk's Office from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m., phone (313) 972-5678.
Consent to a residence search may provide police with a way around the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment, but it won’t get them around the need for a trial. In Lavigne v. Forshee, No. 312530, a §1983 action, the Court of Appeals ruled that where an officer is searching a residence without a warrant and factual disputes exist as to whether valid consent to the search was given, the scope of that supposed consent, or whether the consent was at any time revoked, summary disposition is improper. In addition, the court held that qualified immunity was no defense at the summary disposition phase because when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, a reasonably competent officer should know that voluntary consent cannot be inferred from mere non-verbal acquiescence to an officer’s claim of lawful authority in the absence of a warrant.
The MLive Media Group Editorial Board has endorsed incumbents Brian Zahra and David Viviano and Kent County Circuit Court Judge James Robert Redford in next Tuesday's election for the Michigan Supreme Court.
A new sheriff arrived at the Michigan Supreme Court last year, and he's been doing a lot of work on, and a lot of thinking about, how the Court processes its own case load. It can be no coincidence that one year after new Michigan Supreme Court Chief Clerk Larry Royster's arrival, the Court is now proposing to overhaul the 7.300 Chapter of the Rules of Court. The Court was already in pretty good shape before he arrived, as shown by the recent survey on the Court office's performance. But there are always things to improve and modernize. The new rules are just a proposal at this point, but a significant one for those of us who regularly practice there. Among many changes, the new rules eliminate the old-school "notice of hearing" for applications and establish firm deadlines for answers to applications. Over the next few weeks, we'll discuss this and other significant revisions, tell you what we believe the implications are, and identify new uncertainties that will arise if the existing proposal is adopted unrevised. We invite any practitioners with similar or different insights and observations to send an email to greache@wnj.com with "7.300 overhaul" in the subject line.
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that workers who were terminated for failing a drug test were entitled to unemployment benefits because they had a valid medical marijuana card. The court heard Braska v. Challenge Mfg. Co., No. 313932, Kemp v. Hayes Green Breach Mem’l Hosp., No. 315441, and Kudzia v. Avasi Serv., Inc., No 318344, as consolidated appeals. The claimants, a hi-lo operator, a nurse, and furniture repairman, were each fired for failing a drug test, although each had a valid registration identification card under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26421, et seq.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v.