A defendant’s first-degree child abuse conviction must be vacated because defense counsel’s performance at trial was “deficient”.

The trial court in this defamation case erred by striking an attorney’s affidavit and precluding the attorney from testifying.

The plaintiff issued subpoenas to the defendant’s employer seeking email communications that the defendant sent to his attorney via his employer-provided email address.

The trial court’s order removing the minor child from the respondent’s care must be vacated because the respondent was denied her fundamental right to procedural due process.

The trial court improperly dismissed an authorized petition to terminate the respondent’s parental rights because it did not issue a decision on the merits of the case.

The trial court in this dog-bite case improperly granted summary disposition to the animal’s owners, because the dog was not provoked by the victim.

The father was erroneously granted joint physical & legal custody, because the trial court improperly conflated his motion to change custody with the mother’s motion to change domicile.

The trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether she had established the required proper cause or change in circumstances.

The trial court correctly modified the parties’ custody order to give the mother sole legal and physical custody of the children.

In this divorce action, the trial court properly held that a postnuptial agreement the parties had entered into did not violate public policy and was enforceable, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court properly ordered that the children be removed from their father’s custody because there was sufficient evidence of the father’s alleged “roughhousing”.

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the protective orders that were issued in these consolidated appeals, ruling the probate court “put the cart before the horse”.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by appointing the paternal aunt as the juvenile guardian of the respondent-father’s children.

The trial court in this divorce action should not have denied the defendant’s request for attorney fees without conducting a hearing and allowing the defendant to support her request for fees.

The trial court also held the defendant’s former legal counsel, the law firm of Neda, Camaj & Fakhouri, PC, jointly and severally liable for the fees. The law firm appealed the ruling.

A trial court did not violate a father’s due process rights and properly terminated his parental rights because the father validly waived his participation in the best-interest hearing.