The Trial Court did not clearly err when it determined termination of Respondent-Father’s parental rights was appropriate under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) and that termination was in the minor child, KS’, best interests.

After granting an ex parte PPO, the trial court denied Respondent an opportunity to present evidence in support of his motion to terminate the PPO. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

The trial court properly extended – on its own motion – the duration of a personal protection order (PPO) after finding the respondent guilty of criminal contempt for violating the PPO, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

An individual may be “temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment” when a court determines that he or she poses “a credible threat to the physical safety of another.”

Summary disposition wrongly granted to defendants, Ingham County and its treasurer, on the claim that an unconstitutional taking of property occurred.

Louisiana’s state bar violated 1st Amendment rights by spending dues on speech that is not related to regulating lawyers or improving legal services.

The trial court in this case properly revoked the father’s paternity to the minor child under the Revocation of Paternity Act (ROPA), the Michigan COA ruled.

A judge was not entitled to judicial immunity after she paused a court hearing to go personally participate in a warrantless search of a litigant’s home.

Michigan State University’s COVID-19 vaccination policy neither violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights nor was it preempted by federal law, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

A First Amendment parody case decided earlier this year by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently landed on the doorstep of the United States Supreme Court.

The trial court properly held the defendant in criminal contempt for violating a personal protection order (PPO) because he “tagged” the plaintiff in a Facebook post.

The statute that permits Michigan trial courts to impose court costs on convicted criminal defendants is not unconstitutional on its face, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

Oakland County’s retention of surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosure sales was an unconstitutional taking without just compensation and violated Article 10, § 2 of the MI Constitution.

Social workers who conducted in-school interviews of the plaintiffs’ children violated the plaintiffs’ 4th Amendment rights because the social workers did not have a “reasonable suspicion” of abuse.

According to the Michigan Constitution, congressional districts must be redrawn every ten years based on the state census results and by using what is called “Apol criteria”.