Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s declaration of a state of emergency by her March 10, 2020 Executive Order 2020-4 to mitigate the risk posed by the novel COVID-19 coronavirus has impacted the practice of law in ways never seen before. Following suit, the Michigan Supreme Court, on March 15, 2020, began issuing several Administrative Orders, including those authorizing trial courts to...
unprecedented nature of Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s Executive Order 2020-21
(the “Stay Home, Stay Safe Order”)
barring all in-person work that is not “necessary to sustain or
protect life or to conduct minimum basic operations” employers
have scrambled to determine whether their business is covered by the order and
whether their employees can continue to come to work consistent with...
On March 23, 2020, Michigan
Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order 2020-21, the “Stay Home,
Stay Safe Order”. In the
Stay Home, Stay Safe Order, the Governor barred all in-person work in the state,
unless it was “ necessary to sustain or protect life or to conduct
minimum basic operations.” This
restriction included most commercial and residential construction...
The halting effect of COVID-19 and Governor Whitmer’s Executive Order 2020-21 on Michigan businesses is unrivaled in recent memory. Unforeseen interruptions to businesses and their income, however, are not. In addition to conventional CGL coverage, for decades insurers have offered insurance products that protect businesses from financial strain resulting from unexpected business...
of us are rightly saying we have never seen anything like this before, there
have been pandemics and the law does remember them and record what happened
during them. Many of the legal issues
that will be raised in the coming months and years arising out of the closures
caused by the Coronavirus are not “unprecedented” – at least not in the common
law. In fact,...
Recently, the Michigan Court of
Appeals addressed three issues commonly raised in shareholder oppression or
member oppression actions: (1) whether a plaintiff must prove that the
defendant intentionally engaged in unfair and oppressive conduct; (2) whether a
court can order a specific remedy for the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s motion
for summary disposition; and (3) whether valuations of a...
practitioners are now aware, effective January 1, 2020, the Michigan Court
Rules regarding discovery have been amended, changing them significantly. One of the key changes has been to the
“scope” of discovery. Previously, the
Michigan Court Rules provided that the scope of discovery had two limits placed
on it: (1) the discovery had to be “relevant to the subject matter...
By Matthew Smith Notices
of non-party fault are common and frequently lead to multi-defendant,
multi-tiered litigation. After a
plaintiff asserts one or more claims against a defendant, MCR 2.112(K)(3)(a)
requires defendant to file a notice identifying any non-party the defendant
believes “is wholly or partially at fault.” The notice “must be filed within 91
days after the party...
By Stephen McKenney The Michigan Supreme Court recently clarified the standard
for evaluating motions for summary disposition based on the plaintiff’s failure
to state a claim for relief (i.e., MCR 2.116(C)(8)). The July 10, 2019 opinion in El-Khalil
v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. (Docket No. 157846)
made two important holdings regarding how trial courts should evaluate: (1)
By Stephen McKenney Culminating a years-long review process – the
progress of which we have been tracking closely – the Michigan
Supreme Court made it official in June 2019: it has adopted the
State Bar of Michigan’s Civil Discovery Amendments. The changes to the civil discovery rules will
become effective January 1, 2020. The
new rules are available online. ...