direct inquiry in Michigan

2023Relying on Hord v Environmental Research Institute of Mich (After Remand), 463 Mich 399 ; 617 NW2d 543 (2000), and M&D, 231 Mich App 22 , appellants assert that a duty to disclose -7- can arise when a party has expressed to another a particularized concern or made a direct inquiry. 4 They argue that plaintiff had a duty to disclose that the November 11, 2020 payment was insufficient because Griffin specifically asked for assurances that the necessary amount was tendered.

2023In Hord, 463 Mich at 412 , the Supreme Court explained that “a legal duty to make a disclosure will arise most commonly in a situation where inquiries are made by the plaintiff, to which the defendant makes incomplete replies that are truthful in themselves but omit material information.” (Emphasis added.) This Court acknowledged the rule similarly in M&D, 231 Mich App at 29 , noting: Our Supreme Court has recognized a vendor’s duty to disclose material facts when the vendor and purchaser have generally discussed the condition at issue—when the purchaser has expressed some particularized conce

2022Justice BOYLE opined that, consistent with Monell v New York City Dep’t of Social Servs, 436 US 658 ; 98 S Ct 2018 ; 56 L Ed 2d 611 (1978), the state’s liability for constitutional violations should arise only when the state is acting pursuant to a custom or policy that violates the constitution.

2022Justice BOYLE opined that, consistent with Monell v New York City Dep’t of Social Servs, 436 US 658 ; 98 S Ct 2018 ; 56 L Ed 2d 611 (1978), the state’s liability for constitutional violations should arise only when the state is acting pursuant to a custom or policy that violates the constitution.

2025That section provides that a person may not recover PIP benefits if they were “the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle . . . involved in the accident with respect to which the security required by section 3101 . . . was not in effect.” We do not need to reach this issue, because if Delacruz-Reyna were not eligible to recover PIP benefits under the policy covering the Silverado due to MCL 500.3113(b), she would also not be eligible 5 While this Court has held that a healthcare provider’s direct claim against an insurer under MCL 500.3112 is not “derivative” of the insured’s ability to make a

2025That section provides that a person may not recover PIP benefits if they were “the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle . . . involved in the accident with respect to which the security required by section 3101 . . . was not in effect.” We do not need to reach this issue, because if Delacruz-Reyna were not eligible to recover PIP benefits under the policy covering the Silverado due to MCL 500.3113(b), she would also not be eligible 5 While this Court has held that a healthcare provider’s direct claim against an insurer under MCL 500.3112 is not “derivative” of the insured’s ability to make a

2022That is, plaintiff challenges the validity and fairness of the merger itself, and any harm resulting from a breach of defendants’ fiduciary duties in handling the merger injures plaintiff directly as a shareholder. 82 Indeed, ownership of shares in a corporation 82 See Rael v Page, 147 NM 306 , 311; 2009-NMCA-123 ; 222 P3d 678 (2009) (“[A] stockholder who directly attacks the fairness or validity of a merger alleges a direct injury to the stockholders, not the corporation.”), citing Parnes v Bally Entertainment Corp, 722 A2d 1243, 1245 (Del, 1999) (“In order to state a direct claim with respec

2022That is, plaintiff challenges the validity and fairness of the merger itself, and any harm resulting from a breach of defendants’ fiduciary duties in handling the merger injures plaintiff directly as a shareholder. 82 Indeed, ownership of shares in a corporation 82 See Rael v Page, 147 NM 306 , 311; 2009-NMCA-123 ; 222 P3d 678 (2009) (“[A] stockholder who directly attacks the fairness or validity of a merger alleges a direct injury to the stockholders, not the corporation.”), citing Parnes v Bally Entertainment Corp, 722 A2d 1243, 1245 (Del, 1999) (“In order to state a direct claim with respec

2022That is, plaintiff challenges the validity and fairness of the merger itself, and any harm resulting from a breach of defendants’ fiduciary duties in handling the merger injures plaintiff directly as a shareholder. 82 Indeed, ownership of shares in a corporation 82 See Rael v Page, 147 NM 306 , 311; 2009-NMCA-123 ; 222 P3d 678 (2009) (“[A] stockholder who directly attacks the fairness or validity of a merger alleges a direct injury to the stockholders, not the corporation.”), citing Parnes v Bally Entertainment Corp, 722 A2d 1243, 1245 (Del, 1999) (“In order to state a direct claim with respec

2022That is, plaintiff challenges the validity and fairness of the merger itself, and any harm resulting from a breach of defendants’ fiduciary duties in handling the merger injures plaintiff directly as a shareholder. 82 Indeed, ownership of shares in a corporation 82 See Rael v Page, 147 NM 306 , 311; 2009-NMCA-123 ; 222 P3d 678 (2009) (“[A] stockholder who directly attacks the fairness or validity of a merger alleges a direct injury to the stockholders, not the corporation.”), citing Parnes v Bally Entertainment Corp, 722 A2d 1243, 1245 (Del, 1999) (“In order to state a direct claim with respec

2018“The distinction between a tacit admission requiring the adoption of a ‘statement’ and nonresponsive conduct as evidence of consciousness of guilt is subtle but is one recognized by this Court and our Supreme Court.” Solmonson, 261 Mich App at 666-667 .

2018“The distinction between a tacit admission requiring the adoption of a ‘statement’ and nonresponsive conduct as evidence of consciousness of guilt is subtle but is one recognized by this Court and our Supreme Court.” Solmonson, 261 Mich App at 666-667 .

2017Id.

2017Id.

2017The court may order the jury to deliberate further without the requested review, so long as the possibility of having the testimony or evidence reviewed at a later time is not foreclosed. [Carter, 462 Mich at 210-211 .] -12- claim of ineffective assistance of counsel—rather than a direct challenge to the propriety of the jury instruction at issue—and, therefore, requires a showing of prejudice.13 See Vaughn, 491 Mich at 669 .

2017The court may order the jury to deliberate further without the requested review, so long as the possibility of having the testimony or evidence reviewed at a later time is not foreclosed. [Carter, 462 Mich at 210-211 .] -12- claim of ineffective assistance of counsel—rather than a direct challenge to the propriety of the jury instruction at issue—and, therefore, requires a showing of prejudice.13 See Vaughn, 491 Mich at 669 .

2017The court may order the jury to deliberate further without the requested review, so long as the possibility of having the testimony or evidence reviewed at a later time is not foreclosed. [Carter, 462 Mich at 210-211 .] -12- claim of ineffective assistance of counsel—rather than a direct challenge to the propriety of the jury instruction at issue—and, therefore, requires a showing of prejudice.13 See Vaughn, 491 Mich at 669 .

2017The court may order the jury to deliberate further without the requested review, so long as the possibility of having the testimony or evidence reviewed at a later time is not foreclosed. [Carter, 462 Mich at 210-211 .] -12- claim of ineffective assistance of counsel—rather than a direct challenge to the propriety of the jury instruction at issue—and, therefore, requires a showing of prejudice.13 See Vaughn, 491 Mich at 669 .

1998Groening v Opsata, 323 Mich 73 ; 34 NW2d 560 (1948).

1998Groening v Opsata, 323 Mich 73 ; 34 NW2d 560 (1948).

2026In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 26 , 26 n 5; 610 NW2d 564 (2000).

2025At the hearing, the trial court stated that it viewed defendant’s amended motion as the same as his original motion, and observed that defendant’s amended motion was “frivolous” because defendant “has been told multiple times by Friend of the Court that he didn’t meet the burden, multiple times, and whether it was in writing or it was verbally, then [he] still continued to file the motions[.]” “Not every error in legal analysis constitutes a frivolous position.” Kitchen v Kitchen, 465 Mich 654, 663 ; 641 NW2d 245 (2002).

2025At the hearing, the trial court stated that it viewed defendant’s amended motion as the same as his original motion, and observed that defendant’s amended motion was “frivolous” because defendant “has been told multiple times by Friend of the Court that he didn’t meet the burden, multiple times, and whether it was in writing or it was verbally, then [he] still continued to file the motions[.]” “Not every error in legal analysis constitutes a frivolous position.” Kitchen v Kitchen, 465 Mich 654, 663 ; 641 NW2d 245 (2002).

2024See Lansing Sch Ed Ass’n v Lansing Bd of Ed, 487 Mich 349, 373-378 ; 792 NW2d 686 (2010). 10 Gaincott thus involved a direct action by a student against a teacher based upon the teacher’s alleged negligence under an in loco parentis theory. 10 While the doctrine of in loco parentis may support a direct claim for ordinary negligence in an appropriate case, it is not generally considered a basis for holding a school vicariously liable for the actions of its students.

2023Relying on Hord v Environmental Research Institute of Mich (After Remand), 463 Mich 399 ; 617 NW2d 543 (2000), and M&D, 231 Mich App 22 , appellants assert that a duty to disclose -7- can arise when a party has expressed to another a particularized concern or made a direct inquiry. 4 They argue that plaintiff had a duty to disclose that the November 11, 2020 payment was insufficient because Griffin specifically asked for assurances that the necessary amount was tendered.

2023Relying on Hord v Environmental Research Institute of Mich (After Remand), 463 Mich 399 ; 617 NW2d 543 (2000), and M&D, 231 Mich App 22 , appellants assert that a duty to disclose -7- can arise when a party has expressed to another a particularized concern or made a direct inquiry. 4 They argue that plaintiff had a duty to disclose that the November 11, 2020 payment was insufficient because Griffin specifically asked for assurances that the necessary amount was tendered.

2023See Pew v Mich State Univ, 307 Mich App 328, 334 ; 859 NW2d 246 (2014) (defining dictum and acknowledging that it is nonbinding). -8- no fraud where a person has the means to determine that a representation is not true.” Nieves v Bell Indus, Inc, 204 Mich App 459, 464 ; 517 NW2d 235 (1994).

2023See Pew v Mich State Univ, 307 Mich App 328, 334 ; 859 NW2d 246 (2014) (defining dictum and acknowledging that it is nonbinding). -8- no fraud where a person has the means to determine that a representation is not true.” Nieves v Bell Indus, Inc, 204 Mich App 459, 464 ; 517 NW2d 235 (1994).

2023Alfieri v Bertorelli, 295 Mich App 189, 193-194 ; 813 NW2d 772 (2012).

2023Alfieri v Bertorelli, 295 Mich App 189, 193-194 ; 813 NW2d 772 (2012).

2021Id. at 8-9 .

2020Relying on Estes v Idea Engineering & Fabricating, Inc, 250 Mich App 270, 285 ; 649 NW2d 84 (2002), defendants argue that plaintiff does not have standing to bring a direct claim for breach of duty under § 541a and thus his claim must be brought derivatively on behalf of the corporation.

2020Relying on Estes v Idea Engineering & Fabricating, Inc, 250 Mich App 270, 285 ; 649 NW2d 84 (2002), defendants argue that plaintiff does not have standing to bring a direct claim for breach of duty under § 541a and thus his claim must be brought derivatively on behalf of the corporation.

2020Oliveira, 451 Md at 239, quoting In re Tyson Foods, Inc Consolidated Shareholder Litigation, 919 A2d 563 (Del Ch, 2007).

2019Furthermore, although plaintiff argues on appeal that she filed the lawsuit against Brown “in anticipation of the probate estate being opened,” this is in direct violation of MCL 700.3104(1), which states that “a proceeding to enforce a claim against a decedent’s estate or the decedent’s successors shall not be revived or commenced before the appointment of a personal representative.” Our Supreme Court made clear the proper procedure in Williams v Grossman, 409 Mich 67, 81 ; 293 NW2d 315 (1980), where the Court explained, “An action against a decedent is maintained by naming his personal repre

2019Furthermore, although plaintiff argues on appeal that she filed the lawsuit against Brown “in anticipation of the probate estate being opened,” this is in direct violation of MCL 700.3104(1), which states that “a proceeding to enforce a claim against a decedent’s estate or the decedent’s successors shall not be revived or commenced before the appointment of a personal representative.” Our Supreme Court made clear the proper procedure in Williams v Grossman, 409 Mich 67, 81 ; 293 NW2d 315 (1980), where the Court explained, “An action against a decedent is maintained by naming his personal repre

2019Lawrence v Burdi, 314 Mich App 203, 214 ; 886 NW2d 748 (2016).

2019Lawrence v Burdi, 314 Mich App 203, 214 ; 886 NW2d 748 (2016).