Michigan Supreme Court

From Judgepedia

Michigan Supreme Court
Sitting Justices
Michael Cavanagh Maura Corrigan Diane Hathaway Marilyn Jean Kelly Stephen Markman Elizabeth Weaver Robert Young
Former justices
Notable rulings
Michigan on Judgepedia

The Michigan Supreme Court is the court of last resort in Michigan. The Court is located in the Michigan Hall of Justice in Lansing, the state capital.

Jurisdiction

The Court's term starts August 1 and runs through July 31 of the following year. ^[1] Most cases involve review of Michigan Court of Appeals decisions, but the court also hears cases judicial misconduct, as well as some cases of original jurisdiction. The court has broad superintending control power over all the state courts in Michigan.

Case load

The court receives over 2000 appeals requests each year; decisions take the form of orders, which are not required to include a written opinion on the case. A Supreme Court order either affirms or reverses the Court of Appeals, or remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings; an order may also adopt a Court of Appeals opinion as the correct rule of law.

Justices of the Michigan Supreme Court

The court's justices

Selection

Seven justices sit on the court, chosen in non-partisan elections for eight-year terms. Should a vacancy occur, the governor may appoint a temporary justice. Though justices' and potential justices' political affiliations are not listed on state ballots, most are nominated by either the Democratic or Republican Parties; a few seek the court via a nominating petition. Michigan judges may be removed with impeachment by the house of representatives and conviction by the senate, the governor may remove a justice with "concurrent resolution" of two-thirds of both houses, or a justice may be removed with the recommendation of the Judicial Tenure Commission.^[2]

Qualifications

To be a qualified candidate for the state Supreme Court, a person must have been licensed to practice law in the state for at least five years, and must be younger than 70 years old, the time of mandatory retirement.^[3] If a vacancy occurs, the governor of the state can appoint a temporary replacement, which lasts until the next general election. The newly appointed justice then must run for re-election to retain the seat.^[4]

Current justices

Chief justice

Every two years members of the court elect one of their own to serve as Chief Justice. ^[5] In 2008, Justice Marilyn Kelly replaced Clifford Taylor as Chief Justice. For the first time in Michigan history, the court selected the Chief Justice in a hearing open to the public. Justices Michael Cavanagh, Diane Hathaway, and Republican Elizabeth Weaver voted for Kelly.^[6]

See Chief justices of the Michigan Supreme Court

Notable cases

20th century

Government liability

In its 2008 decision Estate of Chantell Buckner v. City of Lansing, the court ruled that the City of Lansing was not liable for the injuries sustained by two girls walking on public property. "In Michigan, governmental agencies such as cities enjoy immunity from tort liability except for six specific scenarios. One such exception is known as the "Highway Exception" and is explained by MCL 691.1402(1), which states that a governmental agency 'shall maintain the highway in reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public travel.' The section goes on to explain that an individual who is injured 'by reason of failure of a governmental agency to keep a highway ... in reasonable repair and in a condition reasonably safe and fit for travel' may recover from the governmental agency for those injuries. Importantly, MCL 691.1401 expressly includes sidewalks in the definition of 'highway.' The City of Lansing brought a motion to dismiss the case based on the argument that no actual structural defect existed in the sidewalk’s construction." The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decision on April 25, 2008. The three dissenting Justices were led by Justice Elizabeth Weaver. Weaver concluded that this expansion of governmental immunity "in a one-page order, instead of a full opinion, appears to be an attempt by the majority to conceal its latest example of judicial activism by unrestrained statutory interpretation."^[7] Writing for the majority in a concurring opinion, Justice Stephen Markman noted that Justice Weaver's arguments had "the potential to mislead future litigants and which seek to replace the policy determinations of the Legislature... with those of Justice Weaver."^[8]

Homeschooling

In People v. DeJonge (1993), the court held that Michigan parents have the right to homeschool their children. However, the court struck down the requirement that at least one parent be a certified teacher.

Human cloning

While the court has yet to hear a case on human cloning, the Michigan Court of Appeals has heard a case involving surrogacy. As the issue of surrogacy gained momentum in the late 1980s, the Appeals Court addressed the constitutionality of Michigan's "Surrogate Parenting Act," during the 1992 case Doe v. Attorney General. "In Doe, infertile couples and prospective surrogate mothers sought a declaratory action interpreting the Surrogate Parentage Act as invalid and unconstitutional due to an alleged violation of the 'due process guarantee of freedom from government interference in matters of marriage, family, procreation, and intimate association.'"

The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiffs’ claim of a due process violation, reasoning that 'the Legislature [had] a compelling state interest sufficient to justify intrusion into plaintiffs’ right to procreate in the surrogacy context.'"

The Court went on to determine that the Legislature "had three compelling reasons that justified the government intrusion." First, the Legislature had an interest in preventing children from becoming mere commodities. Second, the Legislature had a concern with the best interests of the child born to a surrogacy arrangement. Third, the Legislature had a compelling interest in preventing the exploitation of women. Ultimately, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the Act stood for the following propositions:

• 1. A surrogate parentage contract is void and unenforceable per MCL 722.855.
• 2. A surrogate parentage contract entered into for compensation is unlawful and prohibited by MCL 722.859.
• 3. For a surrogate parentage contract to exist there must be present the elements of (1) conception, through either natural or artificial insemination, of, or surrogate gestation by a female and (2) the voluntary relinquishment of her parental rights to the child.
• 4. A contract, agreement, or arrangement that does not contain both elements set forth in 3 above is neither void and unenforceable under MCL 722.855 nor unlawful and prohibited by MCL 722.859, even when entered into for compensation.^[9]

Abortion cases

In November of 1972, immediately prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, the people of Michigan overwhelmingly voted to uphold their ban on abortion--i.e. abortions were still considered illegal unless executed in order to save the mother's life (the ban had only been amended a few times since its inception in 1846, and with little consequence).^[10]

Per a white paper by Americans United for Life:

"In the decades since Roe v. Wade...the Supreme Court of Michigan has only addressed the question of abortion rights directly in two June 1973 companion cases: People v. Bricker and Larkin v. Calahan. In "Bricker", the defendant was charged and convicted of attempting to perform the abortion procedure in violation of Michigan’s penal code under section 750.14 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. Since the defendant’s crime had taken place in 1967, his appeal to the Court in 1973 was premised on the notion that Michigan’s pre-Roe... criminal ban on abortions was now inapplicable due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in those two aforementioned cases. The Bricker Court acknowledged that 'the judicial opinions filed by the United States Supreme Court in Roe....[is] binding upon us under the Supremacy Clause.' Yet, the Court held that in the case at hand the defendant was still criminally responsible under Michigan’s pre-Roe statutory abortion ban, section 750.14....Thus, the Bricker Court preserved section 750.14 so as to continue to attach criminal responsibility to those persons who would perform abortions--all persons, except that is, licensed medical physicians, in accordance with the Roe...[holding].

"In Larkin --the companion case to Bricker--...the Court held that section 750.14, as discussed in Bricker, was constitutional and applicable against all persons except licensed medical physicians. With regard to section 750.15, which expressly prohibited the providing, advertising, publishing, selling or publicly exposing for sale of any “pills, powder, drugs or combination of drugs” (i.e. abortifacients) used for procuring an abortion, the Court ruled this statute was also constitutional. Yet, the Court preserved section 750.15 because the statute--unlike the statutory language contained within section 750.14--specifically excluded physicians who could provide an abortifacient via prescription: '[It] would appear to be entirely consistent with the rationale of Roe v Wade. It makes the sale of drugs or medicines designed to produce abortion a medical rather than a commercial activity.'" ^[11]

A note on abortion legislation:

"In the late 1990s, the Legislature passed the Prenatal Protection Act,' which 'punishes individuals who harm or kill fetuses or embryos under various circumstances,' with penalties up to and including life imprisonment. In 2000, the Legislature next enacted the “Safe Delivery of Newborns” law, which provides that a parent may 'surrender' a newborn (a child not more than seventy-two hours old) to an emergency service provider 'without expressing an intent to return for the newborn.' Finally, in 2002 the Legislature enacted the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” which establishes that if an abortion results in a live birth of a child (as that term is commonly understood) then the medical physicians in attendance have a legal duty to see to it that the newborn child receives adequate and immediate medical care.

"The Michigan Supreme Court has not yet ruled directly upon any of these three recent laws, but the Michigan Court of Appeals has done so regarding Michigan’s Prenatal Protection Act.' In a 2002 case, People v Kurr, the defendant appealed her conviction of voluntary manslaughter for stabbing her boyfriend. The defendant argued that the trial court erred in not allowing the defense of others jury instruction, which the defendant allegedly deprived her of her right to present a defense – a defense that was premised on her protection of her fetuses from assault by her boyfriend. The Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded for new trial, holding that in Michigan:

The defense [of others] should also extend to the protection of a fetus, viable or non-viable, from an assault against the mother, and we base this conclusion primarily on the fetal protection act adopted by the Legislature in 1998.

The plain language of these provisions evidences the Legislature’s conclusion that fetuses are worthy of protection as living entities as a matter of public policy.

Consequently, the significance of the Kurr decision is that the Court of Appeals affirmed that non-viable, as well as viable, fetuses were protected under Michigan’s Prenatal Protection Act."^[12]

Assisted suicide

In 1994, the high court ruled on whether or not Michigan's ban on assisted suicides was constitutional. At the center of the cases in question (People v. Kevorkian; Hobbins v. Attorney General) were the actions of Jack Kevorkian for his participation in numerous assisted suicide procedures prior to the ban's enactment. "In their rulings, the Court held the assisted suicide provisions of section 752.1027 of state law were validly enacted and did not violate the state's constitution. Second, 'the United States Constitution does not prohibit a state from imposing criminal penalties on one who assists another in committing suicide.'" Further, "after a commission study, the Michigan Legislature established a permanent law criminalizing the act of assisted suicide in 1998 (section 750.329a). In November 1998, Michigan citizens voted overwhelmingly against a ballot measure that would have legalized assisted suicide in Michigan." ^[13]

19th Century

Racial voting rights

An important judicial decision was rendered in 1866. The issue in the case, People v. Dean, was whether or not a man – who was part black – was eligible to vote. The Civil War had just ended, and advocates for black male suffrage and equal rights in general were at the peak of their influence. Dean, who was determined to be of approximately “one-sixteenth” African descent, was found to be in violation of a Michigan Constitutional provision granting suffrage only to “white male citizens”. In his written opinion, Campbell interpreted the law to include persons with “less than one-fourth of African-blood”. Under this ruling, Dean was eligible to vote because he was only one-sixteenth African. Explaining his reasoning in this decision, Campbell asserted, “…the right of the people to determine the qualification of electors is undisputed. We are bound to adhere to the rule they have established. The right to vote is granted to a certain designated class, and to no others”. While Justices Cooley and Christiancy both concurred with this ruling, George Martin dissented, calling the exclusion of blacks from the right to vote a “rule of slavery” and questioning the courts authority to exclude persons with any level of African blood from full citizenship.

Public Monies for Private Enterprise

Just four years after the Dean case, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled on another widely-debated issue. The case, People ex rel the Detroit and Howell Railroad Co. v. The Township Board of Salem (popularly known as People v. Salem) not only reflected the growing reputation of the "Big Four" (then justices Christiancy, Campbell, Cooley and Graves) and their disregard for popular politics, but also further established the Court's independence and authority.

The case involved public use of money to aid the building of privately owned railroads. The Michigan constitution of 1850 severely limited the state's participation in internal improvements. By 1870, the railroad debate became one of the state's most politically charged issues. At stake in People v. Salem was an application for mandamus by the Detroit and Howell Railroad Company to compel the Township Board of Salem to execute and issue bonds to aid in the construction of the proposed railroad. The Circuit Court of Washtenaw County ruled in favor of the railroad, and the case was then brought to the Michigan Supreme Court for appeal. The Court overturned the decision and deemed it unconstitutional. In his written opinion, Chief Justice Cooley addressed the issue of whether or not the railroads were a public entity. He concluded that in one sense they were "public highways" because they aided the public in travel, but otherwise:

They are not, when in private hands, the people's highways; but they are private property, whose owners make it their business to transport persons and merchandise in their own carriages, over their own land, for such pecuniary compensation as may be stipulated.

Both Justices Campbell and Christiancy concurred with Cooley's decision, although Campbell differed in his interpretation of "obligation of contracts." Justice Benjamin F. Graves dissented.

Assessing current court

Recently, Matthew Schneider wrote a white paper entitled "Michigan's Big Four: An Analysis of the Modern Michigan Supreme Court" (see the full report here). Schneider compares the current court's jurisprudence to the Michigan Supreme Court's original "Big Four": Chief Justice Thomas M. Cooley, and Associate Justices Issac P. Christiancy, James V. Campbell and Benjamin F. Graves. When assessing the current court's philosophy of law, two key cases provide insight into the philosophy of the current court.

• In this case, the court ruled 5-2 (Justice Taylor writing for the majority, joined by Justices Weaver, Corrigan, Young and Markman) that the clear language of the Legislature should be the governing basis upon which municipal employees are potentially liable in the discharge of their duties. This consolidated case (with Cooper v. Wade) addressed government liability, specifically if the City of Detroit (or individual police officers) could face civil liability for injuries sustained by passengers in vehicles fleeing from the police when the fleeing car caused the accident. The majority wrote that it was unreasonable to suggest under a narrow reading of the statute that the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the operation of the police vehicles. In this decision the court departed from precedent that the majority ruled was decided improperly (Fiser v. Ann Arbor, Rogers v. Detroit and Dedes v. Asch) and noted that “the rule of stare decisis is not an inexorable command.”

• While establishing a two-part test as a basis for departure from stare decisis, the court also asserted that the court’s duty is to accept the Legislature’s understanding of the laws they make. To wit, the opinion in Dedes assumed that when the Legislature wrote “The... employee’s... conduct does not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage” (emphasis added) that the Legislature meant “a” proximate cause. Writing for the majority, Taylor noted:

  “After all, the judiciary has always adhered to the principle that the Legislature, having acted, is held to know what it has done, i.e., to know the difference between ‘a proximate cause’ and ‘the proximate cause’... it is not necessary to rely on theoretical surmises to conclude this, as the Legislature has shown an awareness that it actually knows the two phrases are different. It has done this by utilizing the phrase ‘a proximate cause’ in at least five statutes and has used the phrase ‘the proximate cause’ in at least thirteen other statutes. Given such a pattern, it is particularly indefensible that the Dedes majority felt free to read ‘the proximate cause’ as if it said ‘a proximate cause.’ The error will not be compounded, as today this Court corrects the flawed analysis of the Dedes majority.”

For the full text of the case, see this link. This decision demonstrates two things. First, that the Court possesses the intellectual courage to challenge precedent, which is not a matter to be taken lightly. Second, that the Court is respectful of the legislature. The Legislature used very specific language in the statute in question, and the Court took pains not to pursue an outcome, but instead decided the case based on the legislature's language.

• In this consolidated case, the court (Justice Corrigan for the majority, with Justices Weaver, Taylor and Young concurring) again addressed government liability, notably ruling contrary to its alleged "conservative" bias. In the case of Reno v. Chung a decedent's father sued the county medical examiner for gross negligence in performing the autopsy of the decedent, as a result of which the father was charged with murder. Plaintiff Reno returned home one day to find his wife and daughter brutally stabbed; his wife was dead but his daughter was still alive. She identified a family acquaintance as their assailant just before dying. Plaintiff related his daughter's dying words to the police; police treated plaintiff and acquaintance as separate suspects in their investigation.

• Wayne County assistant medical examiner opined after autopsy that the stab wounds to the daughter's neck rendered her unable to speak, and plaintiff was arrested and charged with double murder. In preparation for the trial, prosecution sought expert testimony to corroborate defendant medical examiner's testimony; the two experts (a pathologist and an otolaryngologist) both stated unequivocally that defendant's conclusions regarding the victim's ability to speak had no anatomical or physiological basis. Charges were dismissed (family acquaintance eventually confessed to the crime) and the plaintiff brought suit for gross negligence. The lower courts dismissed the suit pursuant to governmental immunity statutes. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the decision was upheld.

• Again in this case, the court applied the law based on the written statutes and the facts of the case. While one's sense of justice, or perhaps right and wrong, might lead one to desire a result that punishes the gross negligence of the defendant, the statute as written provides immunity to a government employee in such testimony on behalf of the state. In short, the written statute - the domain of the Legislature - is the matter that may be considered objectionable in this case, not the court's decision. This respectful understanding of the separation of powers is the hallmark of a court's jurisprudence based upon judicial restraint.

Elections

2008 election

Diane Hathaway defeated Clifford Taylor on November 4. Hathaway garnered 1,854,744 votes (49%) to Taylor's 1,484,924 votes (39%). Libertarian candidate Robert Roddis won 421,091 votes, or 11%.^[14] Hathaway became the first challenger to defeat a sitting Chief Justice in the history of the court.^[15] The election of Diane Hathaway gave the Democrats on the court the potential for more majority rulings, as Elizabeth Weaver, a Republican, many times rules with the Democrats.

See the article entitled Michigan Supreme Court elections for more information.

No on ballot measure

In September 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 6-1 against the Reform Government Now ballot measure that would have altered the judicial, executive and legislative branches of Michigan government. Opponents of the ballot measure would argue that the alterations to the branches would benefit the Democratic Party. The six-member majority agreed with a prior Court of Appeals ruling, saying the measure was too lengthy to be a single initiative. In order to be placed on the ballot, the 19,000 proposal would have to decrease to 100 words. Justice Marilyn Kelly dissented from majority's opinion, writing, "It has long been recognized that the citizens' right to decide whether to amend the state constitution must be zealously protected. Without having the Board of State Canvassers' proposed language before it, how can this Court determine that a legally acceptable statement of purpose cannot possibly be made in 100 words?"^[16]

Trial lawyer objects

According to former Michigan Trial Lawyer Association president Jesse M. Reiter, over the last several election cycles, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been funding state Supreme Court seats across the country. As a result, many state supreme courts, which were "once fair and neutral", now favor big business interests. According to Reiter: "buying a new court... [is] far cheaper than changing the direction of fifty legislatures." ^[17]

2000 election

In 2000, the Michigan Supreme Court experienced a political turnover, as Republicans regained the majority of seats for the first time since 1976. At the time, three incumbent Republicans were on the ballot. The races were the most expensive in state history; somewhere between $13 and $15 million was spent by the candidates, the Republican and Democratic Parties, and interest groups. Both sides are remembered for having aired accusatory commercials: the Democrats asserted that the incumbent justices were "anti-family," and the Republicans criticized one challenger who joined a decision that upheld light sentencing for a pedophile.^[18]

History of the court

The Michigan Territory

On July 24, 1805 the first Supreme Court for the new Territory of Michigan was created. Its first Justices were Augustus B. Woodward, Frederick Bates, and James Witherell. From July 9 through October 8, 1805, a series of statutes, known as the Woodward Code, was created to serve as the basis of Supreme Court legal procedure in the Michigan Territory. Complaints about the inadequacies, including indefinite tenure, were corrected; in March of 1823, an act was passed that limited the terms of Supreme Court justices to four years.

The First Constitution

The Constitution of 1835 provided a Supreme Court with three justices, and one session of court was to be held in Wayne County, Washtenaw County, and Kalamazoo County. Justices were appointed by the governor with consent of the senate, and held terms of seven years. The court had original and appellate jurisdiction in common law and equity cases, as well as action of right and the extra legal remedies of mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and writs of certiorari over decisions made by the Circuit Courts. "On July 18, 1836, Governor Stevens T. Mason nominated fellow Democratic Party members William A. Fletcher, George Morrell, and Epaphroditus Ransom to be Chief and Associate Justices of the Michigan Supreme Court, respectively. Morrell was assigned to the first Circuit Court, Fletcher to the second, and Ransom to the third. Each appointee was approved by an almost unanimous vote in the Senate."

Early Flaws

The Michigan Constitution of 1850 made several changes to the Court, most significantly, the elimination of the separate Court of Chancery, the change from appointment of superior court Justices to popular elections, and a Supreme Court comprised of four members: one Chief Justice, and three associates.^[19]

Compensation

In 2007, the Michigan Supreme Court released salary information for the court and employees of the judicial branch on the internet, after an information request from the Lansing State Journal. The court's seven justices are paid $164,610 per year.^[20]

External links

• Michigan's Big Four: An Analysis of the Modern Michigan Supreme Court
• House Joint Resolution: Article VI Section 24 Amendment to the State Constitution: Elimination of the "Incumbent" designation on judicial ballots
• Michigan Supreme Court won’t hear Detroit mayor’s appeal
• Michigan Court of Appeals Page
• Michigan's Court Page
• Michigan on Trial: Litigation Industry Looks to Recapture the Great Lakes State
• Discord erupts on Michigan Supreme Court
• Michigan judges face ethical issues over pay cut
• Supreme Court unanimously backs release of documents
• Proposal to re-write Michigan Constitution aims at taking Republicans out of office
• Trial Lawyers Target Three Michigan Judges Up for Election
• Salary Chart
• Notable Decisions by State

References

Portions of this article have been taken from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Copyright Notice can be found here.

v • d • e List of Chief Justices of the Michigan Supreme Court Adams • Bird • Blair • Boyles • Brennan • Brickley • Brooke • Bushnell • Butzel • Campbell • Carpenter • Carr • Cavanagh • Champlin • Chandler • Christiancy • Clark • Coleman • Cooley • Corrigan • Dethmers • Fead • Fellows • Fitzgerald • Flannigan • Fletcher • Grant • Graves • Green • Hooker • Kavanagh • Kuhn • Long • Mallett • Marston • Martin • McAlvay • McDonald • McGrath • Montgomery • Moore • Morrell • Morse • North • Ostrander • Potter • Pratt • Ransom • Reid • Riley • N. Sharpe • E. Sharpe • Sherwood • Sibley • Starr • Steere • Stone • Taylor • Weaver • Whipple • Wiest • Williams • Wing • Witherell • Woodward

The Michigan Project on Judgepedia

Supreme Court Court of Appeals Federal court of appeal

Federal eastern district for Michigan Federal western district for Michigan