Elder Justice Prosecutor Samples
Requests Court deny motion because: there are issues of material fact with respect to breach of contract; there are issues of material fact with respect to payments; there is a question of material fact with respect to intentional and negligent emotional distress
Argues Court must reverse trial court decision because: plaintiff lacked requisite ability to understand financial transactions; defendants knew plaintiff was mentally disabled; defendants breached fiduciary relationships between attorneys and clients
Argues Court must deny motion because: plaintiff's expert's causation opinions derive from the same methodology defendant's experts use to reach causation conclusions; a jury must resolve these issues
Argues Court must affirm order because: plaintiff signed enforceable arbitration provisions that preclude action against defendant; plaintiff cites inapplicable and non-binding cases and authorities; plaintiff's alleged unconscionability or fraud arguments are incomplete
Requests Court affirm motion because: services rendered are outside required operating licenses; facility is unlicensed; plaintiff's expert is unqualified
Argues Court must remand because: tortious interference is shown; defamation per se is shown; issues of fact exist on various breach of duty claims; professional judgment immunity does not apply
Argues Court must deny application or, in the alternative, affirm court of appeals' decision because: application failed to show grounds for review; court of appeals reversed trial court's grant of summary disposition and remanded case for trial
Argues Court must reverse opinion and reinstate judgment because: court of appeals added the victim's lack of an inherent weakness as a restriction to the vulnerability definition; court of appeals holding defendant's conduct was not predatory failed to punish defendant's calculated preoffense victimization
Argues Court must deny leave to appeal because: as statutorily defined, defendant did not abuse authority; there was no exploitation of a vulnerable victim
Argues Court must affirm judgments because: confrontation clause does not apply to non-testimonial hearsay; confrontation clause does not apply to nonhearsay statements; error in admission of testimonial hearsay does not result in miscarriage of justice
Argues Court grant leave to appeal and reverse judgment because trial court: correctly awarded no-fault attorney fees; failed to award attorney fees as case evaluation sanctions; failed to rule 12% penalty interest continues until judgment for overdue benefits satisfied (2008)
Requests Court deny motion because defendant's breaches of applicable standard of care caused plaintiff's injuries and death (2007)
Argues hearsay statement establishes identity. Alleges hearsay statement: trustworthy. (2007)
Requests Court admit identity of participant in a phone conversation through circumstantial evidence (2007)
Requests Court deny motion because defendant: made fraudulent misrepresentations; breached fiduciary duty; used undue influence; converted plaintiff's property; committed statutory trespass/unlawful interference; inflicted emotional distress; was unjustly enriched (2006)
Requests Court deny summary disposition because plaintiff claims: Michigan Whistleblower's Act Protection; breach of contract; invasion of privacy; business defamation; tortious interference with business expectancy (2006)
Requests Court deny defendant's motion because questions of fact regarding issues of duty and proximate cause must be determined (2005)
Argues Court should grant property tax exemption because nonprofit healthcare provider's property is exempt under charitable institution and public health exemptions (2005)
Search Warrant and Supporting Affidavit (2015)
Search Warrant and Supporting Affidavit
Argues decision must be affirmed because: plaintiff satisfied proximate causation; expert testimony was not needed for but-for causation; expert testimony was not required on attorney-client issue; alleged negligence did not destroy cause of action
Alleges: Count I - Gift; Count II - Conversion; Count III - Civil Theft; Count IV - Unjust Enrichment; Count V - Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Count VI - Fraudulent Transfers; Count VII - Financial Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult
Argues Court must affirm order because: district court properly denied plaintiff's motion to amend; plaintiff failed to mitigate alleged damages; plaintiff's breach of contract led to mortgage foreclosure; plaintiff failed to appeal district court's order for dismissal
Argues Court must affirm decision because: evidence supports order; order is based on record; fair hearings allow hearsay; order does not violate due process