In addition to improperly granting summary disposition, the Trial Court legally erred in finding that the objection to sharing of referral fees under MRPC 1.5(e) was timely.

The Michigan Supreme Court’s recent decisions in previous cases operates retroactively and applies to all cases currently pending on direct appeal.

Respondent-father had the ability to provide “consistent support though not ample support” for his children while he was incarcerated but did not do so.

Summary disposition was prematurely granted to the defendant in this dispute over attorney referral fees because discovery “had not begun in earnest”.

A cross-appeal was unnecessary in this FOIA case in order for the defendant-city to suggest an alternative ground for affirming the lower court’s decision.

The case of In re Holbrook, Minor - which involves alleged parental neglect and the statutory grounds for taking jurisdiction over a minor child - is moot.

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

Judges “have an ethical obligation to maintain competence with and further educate themselves on advancing technology, including but not limited to AI”.

The trial court gave a Georgia custody order proper effect by granting the parties joint legal custody while omitting the order’s tie-breaking authority provision.

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.

Clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate the mother’s parental rights in this case and doing so was in the child’s best interest.

Termination of a mother’s parental rights overruled by Michigan COA, due to trial court overemphasizing the mother’s use of marijuana.

The trial court erroneously held that statutory grounds for terminating the respondents’ parental rights had been established by clear and convincing evidence.

The trial court’s decision to suspend Mother’s parenting time had the effect of modifying the award of joint physical custody in the consent judgment of divorce, and MCR 3.207 did not apply to the case.

The trial court erroneously ordered that the children in this case be removed from their mother’s care based on medical neglect.