MSC will hear oral arguments Jan. 8.

Byline: Lee Dryden

Cases involving no-fault, a trust question and the Freedom of Information Act will be heard by the Michigan Supreme Court during January oral arguments.

The high court will convene to hear the cases on the sixth floor of the Hall of Justice, 925 W. Ottawa St. in Lansing. Arguments will begin at 9:30 a.m. Jan. 8.

Oral arguments are broadcast live here.

Morning session: Progress Michigan v. Attorney General; Hahn v. Geico Indemnity Company; In re Robert E. Whitton Revocable Trust.

Information about the cases below is from summaries provided by the Michigan Courts.

Morning session

? Progress Michigan v. Attorney General

Believing that the state's (former) Attorney General and members of his staff used their personal email accounts to perform official functions, plaintiff nonprofit organization requested, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq., all of defendant's department's emails since 2010 that were sent or received using a personal email account in the performance of any official function.

On Oct. 19, 2016, defendant's department denied the request, explaining that it did not possess records that met plaintiff's description, with the exception of one email that was exempt from disclosure. Plaintiff appealed, and defendant's department upheld the denial. On April 11, 2017, plaintiff filed a FOIA complaint in the Court of Claims, pursuant to MCL 15.240(1)(b). Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with MCL 600.6431(1), which provides in part that no claim may be maintained against the state unless the claimant, within one year after the claim has accrued, files a written claim that "shall be signed and verified by the claimant before an officer authorized to administer oaths."

Plaintiff amended its complaint to be statutorily compliant, but the amended complaint was filed on May 26, 2017, beyond the 180-day FOIA statute of limitations. Defendant moved for summary disposition, which the Court of Claims denied in part, holding that the original complaint tolled the limitations period and the amended complaint related back to the original, timely complaint. Defendant appealed.

Drawing on medical malpractice caselaw, the Court of Appeals reversed in a published opinion, holding that because plaintiff's original, timely complaint was neither signed nor verified, the "[n]o claim may be maintained" language in MCL 600.6431 was triggered, rendering the original complaint void and...