In a docket that feels both tightly focused and wide-ranging, the Michigan Supreme Court will hear argument in 56 cases based on its orders issued through September 26, 2025. (More, of course, will be later added in the coming months to fill out the court’s 2025-26 term.)

The big picture (by the numbers)

• Total cases set for argument (so far): 56
• Civil: 27 (6 “leave granted,” 21 “MOAA” arguments on application)
• Criminal: 29 (7 “leave granted,” 22 “MOAA”)

---

Premises liability: a question of care

In twin MOAAs, Linda Molitoris v St Mary Magdalen Catholic Church (166699) and Michael Radke v Charles Truesdell (167162), the Court asks whether it should abandon the traditional status-based categories (like invitee, licensee, trespasser) for determining a premises possessor’s duty, in favor of the Third Restatement of Torts’ reasonable-care standard. This would necessitate overruling Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship. The Radke case also inquires whether, even if the status categories are retained, a question of fact exists about the floor opening posing an unreasonable risk of harm.

No-fault insurance and statutory interpretation

Several cases address the technical landscape of Michigan’s No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3101 et seq.).

The question of who is entitled to recovery dominates these appeals:

• In Carlonda Naishe Swoope v Citizens Ins Co of the Midwest (166790), the Court will determine if a plaintiff is barred from recovering personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits because she was willingly operating or using a motor vehicle she knew, or should have known, was taken unlawfully, per MCL 500.3113(a).
• Mohammed Abdulla v Auto Club Group Ins Co (167532-3) addresses whether the plaintiff was an “owner” of the vehicle at issue under MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i), or if they are entitled to benefits as a relative domiciled in the named insured’s household.
• The recovery of noneconomic damages is at stake in John Goings, Sr v Bobbie Jean Giacomantonio-Snow (167499), which asks if a nonresident’s violation of the insurance requirement for operating a non-Michigan registered vehicle for over 30 days bars them from recovering such damages.
• Central Home Health Care Servs, Inc v Mich Auto Ins Placement Facility (167421) focuses on whether MCL 500.3172(1) requires a claimant seeking benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan to prove the underlying accident occurred in Michigan.
• In a tort context related to No-Fault, Joseph Canty v Michael Chester Mason (167772) asks if a plaintiff seeking allowable expenses for medical treatment in a tort action under MCL 500.3135(3)(c) has a duty to mitigate damages by seeking Medicare payment, and whether the medical fee schedules apply to these tort claims.
• Finally, domicile and residency are key in McKenna Frownfelter v Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co (168356-7), determining if the appellant was domiciled or a resident of her father’s household at the time of the accident.

Administrative, probate, and consumer law

The justices granted leave in Att’y Gen v Eli Lilly & Co (165961) to scrutinize claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), specifically examining whether the plaintiff adequately pled a violation and whether pleading a violation is necessary to determine if the MCPA exemption (MCL 445.904(1)(a)) applies. This case also asks if the Court’s interpretations of that exemption in Smith v Globe Life Ins Co and Liss v Lewiston-Richards, Inc were correct, and if they should be retained.

Other significant civil cases

• Christina Zink v Genesee Intermediate Sch Dist (167913), which explores whether constructive discharge constitutes adverse employment action under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, requiring the Court to re-examine the correctness of Joliet v Pitoniak and Magee v DaimlerChrysler.
• Warren Consol Sch Dist v Sch Dist of Hazel Park (167643) concerns procedural clarity in administrative law, asking if an agency’s decline to issue a declaratory ruling mandates an appeal under MCL 24.263 or enables a separate declaratory-judgment action under MCL 24.264.
• Dep’t of Health & Human Servs v NRK RX, Inc (167917) deals with the proper relationship between complex venue statutes as applied to civil actions brought by DHHS.
• In probate law, In re Est of Jerome E Sizick (166921) touches on the mootness doctrine and whether a probate court can consider Medicaid availability when evaluating a protective order for spousal support. In re Est of Jennifer L Fowler (167501-3) questions whether 401(k) funds disbursed to a trust are exempt from attachment by the Estate of Helen Fowler and if life insurance proceeds (also disbursed to a trust) are subject to claims by Helen’s Estate to the extent that the Estate of Jennifer L Fowler lacks sufficient assets to satisfy those claims.
• Family law is addressed in Shannon Blackman v Tyler David Millward (167867), which examines whether the limitations period set forth in MCL 722.1437(1) applies to an action to revoke an acknowledgement of parentage based on nonconsensual sexual penetration, MCL 722.1445(2).
• The Court will review the knowing and voluntariness of a mother’s release of parental rights in In re Pawloski (168651).
• Other civil matters include Nakyrra Hogan v Wayne Cnty (167262) regarding whether dismissal of a claim based on failure to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) must be with prejudice, and whether the plaintiff was a “prisoner” at the time the suit was filed; Mich Immigrant Rights Ctr v Governor (167300-1) concerning the statute of limitations (MCL 600.6431) for prospective relief claims against state officers; Janice Sherman v Progressive Mich Ins Co (167826) on the proper standard of review for equitable rescission; Jan Bowerman v Red Oak Mgmt Co (167718) concerning premises duty and whether MCL 554.139(1)(a) was violated; Lawanna Smith v Beaumont Health (167716, 167720) regarding a trial court’s discretion in failing to consider the factors in Dean v Tucker when a motion to amend a witness list was filed; Brian Zezula v Independence Twp (168483) regarding exceptions to governmental immunity under the GTLA and whether a failure to mark facilities constitutes a “defect” or a compensable “sewer disposal system event”; and Keran Ernest v Paul W Brown, Jr (168462), which questions whether Waltz v Wyse correctly held that MCL 600.5856(c) does not toll the additional period for filing wrongful-death actions.

Environmental review and tax law

In two related actions concerning the Enbridge pipeline, In re Application of Enbridge Energy: Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v MPSC (168335-9) and In re Application of Enbridge Energy: For Love of Water v MPSC (168346), the justices tackle the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). The MOAAs seek clarification on the standard of review under MEPA, MCL 324.1705(2), and whether the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) must comply with the common-law public trust doctrine.

Tax cases include Knier, Powers, Martin, & Smith, LLC v City of Bay City (167593), asking if a new commercial roof constitutes an “addition” for taxation purposes, and Nationwide Agribusiness Ins Co v Dep’t of Treasury (167608), addressing whether insurance companies in a unitary business group can file combined returns for collective premiums and retaliatory tax liabilities.

---

The SORA recapture challenges

In People v Roy John Klinesmith (164649) and People v James Ellis, Jr (166766), the MSC continues its scrutiny of SORA’s “recapture” provision, MCL 28.723(1)(e). These cases ask whether the provision constitutes ex post facto punishment or cruel or unusual punishment, building upon precedents like People v Betts. A central interpretative conflict is whether the later, nonsexual offense or the earlier sexual offense triggers SORA registration. The Court will also decide in People v Gary J Shaver, Jr (167736) whether People v Betts (2021) applies retroactively to cases that have already become final after direct review expired.

Felony murder and retroactivity

In People v Edwin Lamar Langston (163968), the MSC again confronts the gravity of mandatory life sentences. The Court must determine the retroactivity of People v Aaron (which required a malice finding for felony murder) and whether mandatory life without parole for felony murder constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment when there is no evidence the defendant acted with malice. The justices are also considering whether to overrule People v Hall.

Miranda, suppression, and counsel rights

The soundness of criminal proceedings is questioned in multiple cases dealing with police conduct and constitutional rights:

• In People v Zebadiah Joseph Soriano (167373) and People v Daren Donell Fenderson (167391), the Court reviews the defendant’s Miranda v Arizona waiver, focusing on whether interrogating officers’ statements and conduct violated the right against self-incrimination.
• People v John Harold Sanders (167899) addresses the proper analysis for suppressing statements made while detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and whether People v Manning was correctly decided.
• People v David Henry Serges (167154) asks whether an arrest was unlawful and if police violated rights by testing a defendant’s pants for DNA without a warrant while the pants were in custody due to detention.
• People v Freddie Wilkins, III (167737) concerns the scope of a Terry v Ohio search and the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, particularly when probable cause stemmed from an infraction related to underage marijuana possession under the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA).
• People v Alexander James Haupt (167315) asks whether the defendant validly waived his right to counsel following defense counsel’s motions to withdraw, or if he forfeited that right through conduct, and if the periods without counsel constituted critical stages.
• The limits of defense strategy are tested in People v Richard Edward Klungle (168010-1), which questions whether trial counsel’s concession of the defendant’s guilt to trespassing deprived the defendant of the constitutional autonomy to assert his innocence, citing McCoy v Louisiana and Florida v Nixon.
• People v James Gregory Eads (168205) determines if the defendant is entitled to relief under the recent decisions of People v Stovall or People v Boykin.

Sentencing and probation conflicts

The Court is poised to settle two recurring conflicts arising from the MRTMA regarding probation: People v Marco A Lopez-Hernandez (167529) and People v Danielle Heaven-Leah Hess (167895) both ask whether the mandatory condition that a probationer shall not violate federal criminal law requires trial courts to bar marijuana use that is otherwise compliant with state MRTMA law.

In sentencing guidelines disputes:

• People v Timothy Joseph Walker (166722) determines if, when scoring Offense Variable (OV) 15, the court may consider conduct that was part of the same offense but formed the basis of a charge dismissed via plea bargain.
• People v Mario Cortize Jackson (167677) addresses whether a victim’s brother is a “victim” for OV 3 purposes, and if the sentencing offense factually caused the brother’s death to justify 100 points.
• People v Evan Taylor Armogeda (167760) considers whether resentencing is mandatory when a guidelines scoring error occurs, even if the trial court indicates it would have imposed the same sentence, and the sentence does not fall within the appropriate guidelines range as amended.
• The weighty question of self-incrimination during juvenile resentencing is addressed in People v Donyelle Michael Black (168159), specifically asking if requiring a defendant to submit to a psychological examination by the prosecution (as a precondition for the defense using its own expert) violates the constitutional bar on compelled self-incrimination.
• People v William Motten, Jr (167190) asks whether People v Beck (2019) should apply retroactively to cases that have become final on direct review.
• Other cases include People v Cinecca Daquan Madison (167120) concerning whether People v Carpenter was correctly decided and, if not, whether it should be retained under stare decisis; People v Michael Marc Morgan (167492) regarding the relevance and admissibility of a victim’s blood-alcohol concentration; People v Hunter James Hudgins (168160) about whether the jury was properly instructed on the causation element of operating while impaired causing death; People v Kristopher Harlan Joesel (167705-6) concerning jury instructions on voluntary manslaughter and restitution for future wage loss for the deceased victim; and People v Gwendolyn Josephine Alexander (168009) regarding whether a medical expert invaded the province of the jury by using the phrase “medical torture.”

Procedure and review standards

Procedural and jurisdictional issues round out the criminal cases:

• People v Todd Douglas Robinson (167595) examines the retroactivity of People v Peeler (2022) and whether an indictment issued by a one-man grand jury without a preliminary examination deprived the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
• People v Devante Kyran Jennings (165764) asks whether Michigan should adopt a test for prosecutorial misconduct that differs from the federal Oregon v Kennedy standard to determine if retrial is barred.
• People v Jayneel Ravindra Jade (167920) focuses on the proper standard of review for entrapment rulings and the necessity of considering a defendant’s readiness and willingness to commit a crime.
• People v Craig Lamont Buggs, Jr (168594) addresses whether a sufficient probable cause nexus existed between alleged drug sales and the homes for which police obtained search warrants, and the applicability of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule if the warrants lacked probable cause.
• Finally, People v Matthew Thomas Harrison (168808) requires review of the defendant’s speedy trial rights and whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying in camera review of the complainant’s psychiatric and medical records.

---

Argument digest

Below is a downloadable digest detailing the Court’s oral argument orders through September 26, 2025.

Where you from?

This Michigan map highlights the originating trial court counties for the cases that will be argued.

Non-county fora includes the Court of Claims, Michigan Tax Tribunal, and the Public Service Commission.