Speaker Law
Blog

Coincidentally after posting about Barnes v Jeudevine last night, I learned this morning that the Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion on another paternity case: Sutton v. Diane. I would not be surprised if this case is appealed to both the Michigan Supreme Court and then to the United States Supreme Court because it raises issues of equal protection and due process when suit was filed on behalf of a minor child to learn the identity of the child's father so as to access medical history and other information about the child's biological father. The COA said that the child did not have standing to commence the paternity action. Although DNA tests revealed that the mother's husband was not the child's biological father, the COA held that "we are not prepared at this time to find constitutionally protected interests under the facts presented, such that this 'paternity' action may proceed."

Labels: biological father, DNA, paternity

---

The case of Barnes v. Jeudevine came out last summer, but is still worthy of discussion. The Supreme Court hotly debated this paternity appeal. I particularly admire Justice Markman's dissenting opinion. The Court held that the biological father of a child did not have standing to sue for paternity, even though he and the mother had signed an acknowledgment of paternity and even though he was the only father the child had ever known. The case also raises interesting questions about default judgments in the divorce context.

Labels: Kalamazoo County, Michigan, paternity, Paternity Appeal, standing

---

The Court of Appeals recently decided a case that I had been following since it hit the local news stations after two young girls were hit by a drunk driver after they walked onto Saginaw Street because the sidewalk was impassable due to snow and ice in Estate of Buckner. The only issues on appeal involved the case against the City of Lansing (the trial court denied summary disposition). The COA held that an unnatural accumulation of snow and ice could fall under the highway exception to governmental immunity. The Court noted that more discovery was needed to determine whether, under the facts of this case, the City is entitled to immunity.

Labels: discovery, governmental immunity, Ingham County, Michigan, Sidewalk Conditions

---

The justices had many questions today for the attorneys in the Omdahl case. Many of the questions related to the meaning of the term "actual attorneys fees" as used in the statute, whether an attorney has to represent a client to recover, and whether attorneys fees are actual if a financial obligation is not incurred by the client. Based on the questions, I did not leave the argument with a sense for how the Court might rule. I wish the parties had talked about the broader implications of the court ruling in their favor, because it could certainly affect attorney fees cases outside of the Open Meetings Act. Here is a question, how can attorney only be an attorney when the attorney represents a client, if the attorney has ethical obligations regardless of whether the attorney is in court and/or representing a client?

Labels: attorney fees, OMA, Open Meetings Act

---

Omdahl is a case that came out last year, but is scheduled for a MOAA (mini oral argument on application) before the Michigan Supreme Court tomorrow, March 7, 2007. The Court of Appeals held that an attorney representing himself in an Open Meetings Act (OMA) challenge could recover attorneys fees. I think this case could have implications for the recovery of attorneys fees beyond the OMA.

I haven't decided whether I agree with the COA's decision. I think the case could potentially be good for attorneys who decide to represent themselves because they can be compensated for the time they devote to a case even though they did not have a cash outlay to hire an attorney. But the case could be bad for our clients who we represent in cases where any in pro per attorney is on the other side and the in pro per attorney did not actually expend money on attorneys fees.

Labels: appeal, appeals, appellate, attorney fees, Court of Appeals, Michigan, Michigan Appeals, Omdahl

---

I am an appellate attorney in Lansing, Michigan and wanted a blog to share commentary on recent cases that I thought were inteteresting or significant. My idea for the blog arose after I noticed that during my daily reading of the e-journal, I would find at least one or two cases every week that gave me pause to consider the decision, print the case, and/or discuss the case with colleagues. I hope this blog will become a forum for attorneys to discuss appellate decisions that affect our clients.

Labels: Blog, lansing, Liisa Speaker, Michigan, Speaker Law Firm

---