Alternative Dispute Resolution

The field of ADR is in constant flux. During this Survey period, arbitration witnessed several important developments. The United StatesSupreme Court decided three cases, a prolific number when compared to recent years. In a long-awaited decision, 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, the Supreme Court revisited the question of whether statutory claims arising under a collective bargaining agreement may be arbitrated if subject to a union-negotiated waiver which is clear and unmistakable. The decision tested the sustainability of Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, a case in which the Supreme Court held that section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA) is more than jurisdictional, it authorizes federal courts to fashion a body of federal law to enforce collective bargaining agreements, including promises to arbitrate under such agreements. In 14 Penn Plaza, however, the Supreme Court used the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), not the LMRA, to decide the fundamental issue of collective waiver. According to some commentators, the Supreme Court‘s decision to rely on the FAA, an Act historically construed to exclude collective bargaining agreements, may signal the court‘s willingness to unify arbitral jurisprudence and bring labor law under the umbrella of the more predictable statutory framework of the FAA. Read More …

The Impact of Heidi’s Law on Alcohol-Related Driving Offenses and Other Developments

Under current Michigan law, an individual is considered to be driving while intoxicated when the person‘s blood alcohol content (BAC) is .08 or above, or, driving under the influence of alcohol (visibly impaired driving) if their BAC is below .08. These offenses are misdemeanors, punishable by a sentence of up to 93 days in jail, for the first time offender. If an offender has a second alcohol-related driving offense within seven years of a prior such conviction, the person can be imprisoned for up to one year. Prior to January 3, 2007, if a person accumulated two or more alcohol-related offenses within ten years of one another, regardless of when during the ten-year period the previous convictions occurred, the person would be charged with a felony. Read More …

Family Law

In Corporan v. Henton, the defendant father appealed the trial court‟s order denying him an evidentiary hearing on his motion for a change of custody. He argued that he had presented sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing. The Michigan Court of Appeals (1) held the trial court “employed the proper procedure by first determining whether proper cause or change of circumstances had been established by a preponderance of the evidence”; and (2) affirmed “the trial court‟s ruling that negative financial changes . . . are more appropriately addressed in achild support context rather than in a change of custody motion.” The father had alleged financial difficulties, (specifically that the mother failed to pay her rent timely, a fact relevant under best interests factors). However, the court found this did not meet the Vodvarka standard because the mother‟s financial difficulties, if any, could be remedied by an increase in child support. The father further alleged that the minor child‟s grades had significantly declined but the trial court held that this “did not demonstrate a change of circumstances,” and the court found that although “the child‟s grades have declined to a minor extent in certain subjects, the child‟s grades do not show anything, more than the normal life changes (both good and bad) that occur during the life of a child.‟” Read More …

Evidence

This Article discusses significant developments in the law of evidence during the Survey period. The Article focuses primarily on published decisions of the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. To the extent that they discuss significant issues of Michigan evidence law, however, unpublished decisions and decisions by the federal courts are also discussed.

The Michigan courts were relatively quiet during this Survey period on evidentiary issues. Although the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a number of decisions addressing issues of relevance, other acts evidence, and expert testimony, the Survey period is best characterized by what the Michigan Supreme Court failed to do, passing on several opportunities to clarify the law with respect to other acts evidence in domestic abuse and sexual assault cases, as well as with respect to hearsay and confrontation issues. Read More …

Contract and Commercial Law

This Article addresses recent developments in contract and commercial law in the state of Michigan for the 2008-2009 Survey period. The purpose of this article is to provide a survey of the law for Michigan practitioners; however, this article does not address every change in commercial or contract law during this time period. Part II discusses significant developments in the area of commercial law and Part III addresses significant developments in the area of contract law. Read More …

Employment and Labor Law

During the Survey period, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed few labor or employment issues of consequence. In a decision that may pave the way for cities to implement restructuring plans for their police and firefighters with greater speed, the court clarified the procedure used to evaluate a request for a preliminary injunction to halt changes to the status quo during the pendency of an Act 321 arbitration. Read More …

Business Associations

During the Survey period, which ran from June 1, 2008 to May 31, 2009, Michigan state courts reported only one decision concerning business law. However, on the statutory front, there were many important amendments to the Michigan Business Corporation Act (BCA) and the Michigan Limited Liability Company Act. There were no amendments to the Michigan Uniform Partnership Act or the Michigan Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act during the Survey period. Somewhat surprisingly, no amendments to the Michigan Professional Service Corporation Act were made in the wake of Miller v. Allstate Insurance Co., which was decided during the prior Survey period. Read More …

Foreword

The Wayne Law Review staff is proud to submit this fifty-second edition of the Annual Survey of Michigan Law. The Wayne Law Review sends our heartfelt appreciation to our dedicated authors. This year, the authors again exceeded expectations and delivered quality work product with valuable research on timely and important developments in Michigan case law. Practitioners on the bench and the bar of Michigan will undoubtedly benefit from the hard work exhibited by our authors. This year’s Survey covers Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals decisions from June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009. Read More …