Source: http://www.wnj.com/Blogs/Appellate/May-2014
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 07:12:07+00:00

Document:
In Director, Workers Compensation Agency v. MacDonald’s Industrial Products, Inc., the Court of Appeals reviewed several issues related to a receiver’s payment of property taxes. Among other things, the Court held that the receiver could not collaterally attack decision of State Tax Commission to revoke certain exemption certificates retroactively—regardless of whether the revocation was proper.
In People v. Quinn, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of People v. Moreno, 491 Mich. 38; 814 N.W.2d 624 (2012), the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury that “lawfulness of arrest” was an element of resisting and obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.81d(1). Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to a new trial.
In People v. Garrison, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a restitution award can include a victim’s travel expenses to recover stolen property and attend a restitution hearing. The Court explained that even though traveling expenses were not expressly listed in the governing statute, providing for traveling expenses may nonetheless be necessary to provide full and maximal restitution where the expenses resulted from the criminal course of conduct.
In Shotwell v. Department of Treasury, the Michigan Court of Appeals narrowly interpreted § 27a(5) of MCL 205.1 et seq. to maintain that a de facto officer of a corporation may not be held personally liable for tax assessments issued prior to that individual officially assuming a corporate officer position.
In In re Wangler, the Court of Appeals examined the validity of a trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over three minor children. Following an order terminating the respondent’s parental rights to the children, the respondent appealed the trial court’s order and challenged the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the minor children. Holding that the respondent’s challenge was an impermissible collateral attack on the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the respondent’s parental rights.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 27