In Neilson v Board of State Canvassers, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the Board of State Canvassers to certify her as a judicial candidate on the election ballot.

Kent County Circuit Court candidate Jennifer Johnsen was wrongly kept off the Michigan primary ballot by the Board of State Canvassers, according to the Michigan Court of Claims.

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.

The trial court erred in awarding Petitioner attorney fees associated with Respondent’s PPO violation. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.

The COA reversed and remanded a trial court order that terminated mother's parental rights due to two-year child support order compliance period. The COA also affirmed the trial court’s determination that the petitioners had proven MCL 712A.19(3)(f)(ii) by clear and convincing evidence.

The trial court did not err in determining the terms of the settlement agreement as unambiguous and not breached, leading to the Court of Appeals to affirm the decision.

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.”

The father in this termination of parental rights case did not have standing to claim that his child’s attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

A child may be returned temporarily to a third country as an “ameliorative measure” if returning the child to his “habitual residence” would pose a “grave risk” of harm.

This custody and parenting-time case must be remanded because the trial court once again committed various errors in making its decisions.

The statutory grounds for jurisdiction were reviewed and were determined that they met by a preponderance of the evidence and the trial court’s decision was affirmed.

The trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to terminate a personal protection order issued against him.

The trial court erred by not conducting an analysis of the parent’s “ability to support” when determining whether such support was “substantial.”

The trial court in this high-asset divorce action properly declined to enforce the charging liens that had been filed by the plaintiff’s attorneys.

The Michigan Supreme Court determined that DHHS “has an affirmative duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify a family before seeking termination of parental rights.”

Because the plaintiff did not suffer “any actual loss or injury,” the trial court in this divorce action did not err by awarding the plaintiff $0 in restitution.