Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Filing time calculations

Court rule affected - MCR 1.108
Admin no. - 2009-30
Issued - 5-18-10
Comments open to - 9-1-10

A minor change to the rule, after reference to weekends, from "holiday" to "day", to account for other days on which courts may be closed. This may well be in anticipation of court furloughs.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

M Civ J I 15.01 - Proximate Cause

The Committee proposes to amend this instruction, which defines "proximate cause".

The proposed new wording, with added language in bold:
When I use the words “proximate cause” I mean first, that the negligent conduct must have been a cause of plaintiff’s injury, and second, that the plaintiff’s injury must have been of a type that is a natural and probable result of the negligent conduct.
The explanatory note:
The Committee proposes to amend the definition of proximate cause because, as presently worded, the second component of the definition can be understood by a jury as meaning that the specific injury suffered must be a natural and probable result of the negligent conduct, whereas all that is required is that the injury fall within the category of injury that is a natural and probable result of the negligent conduct. To convey the distinction the committee has added the words “of a type that is.”
Link

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Time for filing disqualification motions

Date: March 16, 2010
Admin: 2009-04
Rule: MCR 2.003
Effective: immediate

As a followup to the Court's November 25, 2009 order, it has now adopted deadlines for the filing of any motion to disqualify a judge or justice:

Trial court - within 14 days of the discovery of grounds
Court of Appeals - within 14 days of assignment of the judge or of the discovery of grounds
Supreme Court -
  • appellant - with the application
  • appellee - within 28 days of the application or within 28 days the discovery of grounds
Link

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Amendments to SCAO forms

This page is where the amendments are found.

An example:
MC 326, Notice of Hearing and Motion: Several court employees have questioned the need for a proof of service on this form. The proof of service was added in 2005, but there is no background on the reason for including it. It is suggested the proof of service be removed. If it is not removed, it should be amended to comply with the standards set forth in MCR 2.107, and not MCR 2.105.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Limits on appeal briefs

Admin no.: 2009-14
Date: February 2, 2010
Effective: May 1, 2010
Rules affected: 7.101 and 7.105

These rules were amended to apply the 50-page limit on briefs to appeals to the circuit court from a judgment of the district court, and to appeals to the Court of Appeals from a decision of a state agency, board, or commission.

Link

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Federal: reining in juries during trial

The Committee On Court Administration And Case Management of the Judicial Conference Of The United States has issued a new recommended jury instruction on "Juror Use Of Electronic Communication Technologies".

The recommended instruction before proofs begin:

"You, as jurors, must decide this case based solely on the evidence presented here within the four walls of this courtroom. This means that during the trial you must not conduct any independent research about this case, the matters in the case, and the individuals or corporations involved in the case. In other words, you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information about this case or to help you decide the case. Please do not try to find out information from any source outside the confines of this courtroom.

"Until you retire to deliberate, you may not discuss this case with anyone, even your fellow jurors. After you retire to deliberate, you may begin discussing the case with your fellow jurors, but you cannot discuss the case with anyone else until you have returned a verdict and the case is at an end. I hope that for all of you this case is interesting and noteworthy. I know that many of you use cell phones, Blackberries, the internet and other tools of technology. You also must not talk to anyone about this case or use these tools to communicate electronically with anyone about the case. This includes your family and friends. You may not communicate with anyone about the case on your cell phone, through e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text messaging, or on Twitter, through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, My Space, LinkedIn, and YouTube."


And at the close of proofs, just before deliberations:
"During your deliberations, you must not communicate with or provide any information to anyone by any means about this case. You may not use any electronic device or media, such as a telephone, cell phone, smart phone, iPhone, Blackberry or computer; the internet, any internet service, or any text or instant messaging service; or any internet chat room, blog, or website such as Facebook, My Space, LinkedIn, YouTube or Twitter, to communicate to anyone any information about this case or to conduct any research about this case until I accept your verdict."

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Rules of professional conduct

Adm no. - 2009-06
Issued - 11-24-09
Covers - several rules under MRPC

A continuation of a previous series of proposals from 2004. Changes, some with alternatives, are proposed to rules dealing with fees, conflict of interest, service as mediator or arbitrator, truthfulness of statements made to the court, public statements during proceedings, and practice by lawyers admitted in other states. It includes a new proposal to allow disciplinary action against a Michigan-licensed lawyer for actions in other states.

Link to proposal