Michael Talbot
From Judgepedia
Contents |
Michael J. Talbot is a judge on the Michigan First District Court of Appeals. He was appointed to the Court in 1998 and his term expires January 1, 2015.[1]
Education
Judge Talbot received his bachelor's degree from Georgetown University and his law degree from the University of Detroit.
Legal career
Awards and associations
Talbot has served as a member of the Board of Catholic Education for the Archdiocese of Detroit since 1992. He currently serves as the Chair of the Advisory Board of St. John's Center for Family and Youth and is a member of the Board of Directors of Manressa Retreat House; the Catholic Lawyers Society; and of Jefferson House, a residential drug treatment facility. Talbot is also a member of the Board of Education of the Archdiocese of Detroit and is a member of the State Bar of Michigan.[3] He has served as chairperson of the Criminal Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan and is a member of the State Bar Representative Assembly, the Special Committee on Victims of Crimes, and the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee. Judge Talbot is also a member of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, the Irish-American Lawyers, and the B'nai B'rith Barristers. He has received service awards from the Crime Prevention Association of Michigan, the State Bar of Michigan, and the Michigan Corrections Association. He actively assisted in the drafting and ultimate passage of the first victim's rights law in Michigan: the Victim's Rights Act. Judge Talbot is a member of the faculty for the National Judicial College and the National Organization for Victim Assistance.[4]
Court upholds Michigan liability law
Even if parents signed a waiver to not hold schools, churches, summer camps and other businesses that provide recreational services to children responsible for a child's injury, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a unanimous decision that these services can still be held liable. Based on Michigan law, the court determined that a pre-injury waiver would be worthless if a child were hurt and the parents wanted to sue. According to the Detroit Free Press, those offering recreational services believe the ruling will likely increase insurance rates. "The court acknowledges the decision could make it tougher to do business. While this ruling has significant and far-reaching implications regarding ... organizations and businesses providing valuable services and activities for minor children, and has the potential to increase litigation and impact the availability of programs to younger members of the community, we have no alternative but to recognize the current status of our law and follow its precepts," the three-member panel ruled. The decision, by Judges Richard Bandstra, Michael Talbot and Bill Schuette said, "The decision in this case is important because it serves as an affirmation of the priority we place on the protection of the health and well-being of our children" the court noted. [5]
Court upholds law and Chrysler's time limits
In 2005, the Michigan Court of Appeals allowed Chrysler to use their six-month limitation in a case regarding age discrimination, which the court noted was allowed under Michigan law. Judge Janet Neff dissented. "I would hold that the contract provision is unconscionable and violates public policy and is, therefore, unenforceable under the circumstances of this case," Neff wrote. Neff noted that a job applicant would have little choice but to sign the application, which included the statement waiving the statute of limitation right. "It is unlikely that an applicant seeking a job from an employer would engage in bargaining these terms at the time of signing the application form," and objecting would likely mean no job offer, she said. According to the Detroit Free Press, the majority found that no state laws prohibit such contractual modifications and that the 6-month period was neither "inherently unreasonable" nor "so extreme that it shocks the conscience." The Legislature would need to change the law, not the courts, Judges Michael Smolenski and Michael Talbot wrote.[6]
Court rules state program violates water act
In a 2-1 ruling, the Court of Appeals determined that the state's program for regulating large livestock and poultry farms violates the federal Clean Water Act. According to the Toledo Blade, the concentrated animal feeding operations generate manure that is spread on farm fields, and runoff can pollute nearby streams with potentially harmful bacteria found in animal waste. Judges William Whitbeck and Michael Talbot said that the state is allowing too much leniency with the farms to "determine and adopt their own rates for spreading manure."[7]
Court rules on home school athletes
A unanimous decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that home-schooled students do not have the same rights as public-schooled students. Home-schooled students do not have a right to play for sports teams of schools in their district. The court consulted the Michigan Supreme Court's decision "that students at nonpublic schools without extracurricular activities must be allowed to enroll in that public school activity." According to state law, schools are required to allow students to develop their intellectual capacities. Sports do not fall under that. Judge Stephen Borrello, joined by Judge Patrick Meter, said Michigan state laws do not require schools to allow home-schooled students to join sports programs. Judge Michael Talbot concurred in the decision. "But plaintiffs have not asserted that interscholastic sports develop either their children's intellectual capacities or vocational skills," the court said. "The Court did not opine or even suggest that nonpublic school students were entitled to participate in extracurricular interscholastic athletic events, and nothing in (its) opinion dictates that conclusion. Unlike a state requirement that all students be taught by certified teachers that the Supreme Court found did violate religious rights, the sports rules do not inescapably compel conduct that the parents find objectionable for religious reasons," the Court of Appeals said. "Rather, by exercising their right to practice their religion through homeschooling their children, plaintiffs made a choice between homeschooling their children and having them participate in extracurricular interscholastic athletic competition," the court said.[8]
See also
External links
- Engler appoints Talbot
- Toledo Blade
- MI Supreme Court rules attorney's radio statements crossed line
- Golf Course cannot be sold to City
- Court of Appeals to hear Taylor lawsuit
- Trial-and-error process helps refine diocesan review boards
- Appeals court rules against Ambassador Bridge owners in land dispute
- Attempt to withdraw murder plea is denied
- Sex abuse allegations involving priest took 9 months to investigate
- Charter debate heard by appeals court
- The Michigan Citizen: America's Most Progressive Community Newspaper
- Priest Abuse Suit Is Allowed although past statute of limitation
- Detroit Free Press
References
Navigation
| ||||||||||||||
