Source: https://michiganlawyerblog.wordpress.com/tag/bill-schuette/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-09-16 02:01:29
Document Index: 415269924

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 6', '§ 23', 'art 6', '§ 23', 'art 6', '§ 23']

Bill Schuette | The Michigan Lawyer | Page 2
Posted on May 17, 2011 by Brian Frasier
The Michigan Supreme Court unanimously ruled ex-Governor Jennifer Granholm’s appointment of Judge Hugh Clarke to the 54-A District Court in Lansing was constitutional. [Attorney General v Clarke, Lawyers Weekly 06-75876]
(1) A judicial vacancy “shall be filled by appointment by the governor.” Const 1963, art 6, § 23.
(2) The resignation of Judge KRAUSE created a vacancy on the 54-A District Court. Id. (“A vacancy shall occur . . . in the district court by . . . resignation . . . .”).
(3) “The person appointed by the governor shall hold office until 12 noon of the first day of January next succeeding the first general election held after the vacancy occurs . . . .” Id.
(4) Michigan law defines “general election” as “the election held on the November regular election date in an even numbered year,” MCL 168.2(h), and sets the November regular election date as “the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November,” MCL 168.641(1)(d). Accordingly, in this case, the “first general election held after the vacancy occurs” falls on Tuesday, November 6, 2012.
(5) Therefore, defendant “shall hold office until 12 noon” on January 1, 2013. Const 1963, art 6, § 23.
(6) The argument of plaintiff that an absurd result could conceivably arise under this Court’s interpretation of Const 1963, art 6, § 23 in circumstances not presented in this case raises an abstract issue that is not properly before this Court.
MSC will hear AG’s district court judge challenge
Posted on March 9, 2011 by Ed Wesoloski
The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to bypass the Michigan Court of Appeals and hear Attorney General Bill Schuette’s quo warranto action, in which Schuette claims Lansing 54-A District Court Judge Hugh Clarke Jr. is illegally occupying his judicial office.
The MSC’s order states that it will assume jurisdiction over the case. The matter has been placed on the Court’s May 2011 session calendar.
Clarke was appointed to the court in December to fill a vacancy created when District Court Judge Amy Krause was appointed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Schuette says it was technically proper for Clarke to fill the last days of Krause’s unexpired district-court term. But, Schuette said last Jan. 7, “any attempt to remain in office past noon on January 1, 2011 is illegal because he cannot fulfill the new term Krause had been elected to on November 2, 2010, but had not started before she left the district court.”
Clarke is being represented by former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Brennan and attorney Lawrence Nolan.
Posted in Courts, Judicial Appointments	| Tagged Amy Krause, Bill Schuette, Hugh Clark Jr., quo warranto	| Leave a reply
Bill would let parents sign liability waivers for children
Posted on March 9, 2010 by Ed Wesoloski
The Michigan House Judiciary Committee will take testimony tomorrow on HB 4970, which would allow a parent or guardian to sign a liability waiver on behalf of a child participating in sports or recreational activities.
The legislation was prompted by a Court of Appeals decision, Woodman v. Kera, LLC. The decision invalidated a liability release signed by a 5-year-old boy’s parent and let a negligence suit go forward against a commercial play area operator after the child broke his leg.
In his lead opinion, Judge Michael Talbot said under the current state of both statutory and common law, the waiver could not stand.
[T]his court is aware of no legislative enactments upholding exculpatory agreements, executed by parents on behalf of their minor children before injury, that waive liability for injuries incurred in either commercial or nonprofit settings. …
[I]n the absence of a clear or specific legislative directive, we can neither judicially assume nor construct exceptions to the common law extending or granting the authority to parents to bind their children to exculpatory agreements. Thus, the designation or imposition of any waiver exceptions is solely within the purview of the Legislature.
Judge Richard Bandstra “reluctantly” concurred with Talbot.
[O]urs is an extremely and increasingly litigious society. Any entity that provides an educational, recreational, or entertainment opportunity to a minor does so at great risk of having to defend an expensive lawsuit, meritorious or not. To avoid some of that, preinjury waivers have become commonplace. If the law does not honor those waivers, the implications appear inevitable: the cost of providing opportunities will rise, some families who would like their children to participate will no longer be able to afford to, and, ultimately, some opportunities will simply become unavailable altogether. …
Because of the impact of today’s decision and the compelling arguments against abrogating preinjury parental waivers, I encourage the Michigan Legislature or Supreme Court to further consider the issue.
Judge Bill Schuette (now off the court and campaigning hard to be the state’s next attorney general) pragmatically noted in his concurrence that important public policy considerations cut both ways.
Certainly, no one in the Michigan judiciary desires to turn a deaf ear or a blind eye to wayward businesses, dishonorable nonprofit organizations, or volunteer groups that might place a child in a dangerous situation, notwithstanding a parent’s executing a release and waiving liability for resulting injury. Equally significant is the fact that an immense amount of youth activities — church groups, Boy Scouts, sports camps of all kinds, orchestra and theatrical events, and countless school functions — run and operate on release and waiver-of-liability forms for minor children. …
[T]he Michigan Legislature will have to determine whether a statutory exception to the common-law rule for preinjury waivers should be adopted, and whether there should be any differentiation between for-profit and nonprofit groups as some states have seen fit to do.
The Legislature heeded the call with the introduction of HB 4970 last year. A House Fiscal Agency analysis predicts “an indeterminate, but likely positive, fiscal impact on the judicial branch. Any fiscal impact would depend on the amount of litigation avoided due to the waiver of claims of liability.”
In the meantime, the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave in Woodman and heard oral arguments in October. A decision is due by the end of July.
Posted in legislation, Legislature, Litigation, Michigan Court of Appeals, Michigan Supreme Court, Personal Injury	| Tagged Bill Schuette, HB 4970, liability waivers, Michael Talbot, parent and child, Richard Bandstra, Woodman v. Kera	| Leave a reply