What

Where

Trusted Across Michigan

2,500

+

Verified Listings

Built for Clients & Attorneys

Every Practice Area

Your Search Starts Here:
Michigan Top Lawyers makes it simple to find the right attorney.

Our Top Rated Lawyers

Popular Exclusive Listings In Our Directory

The Elder Care Firm

The Elder Care Firm

Be the first one to rate!

860 W Grand River Ave

Practice Areas : Elder Law

Seva Law Firm

Be the first one to rate!

1050 Wilshire Suite 335 Troy, MI 48084

Practice Areas : Insurance

Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C.

Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C.

Be the first one to rate!

101 West Big Beaver Road 10th Floor Columbia Center Troy, Michigan 48084

Practice Areas : Commercial Real Estate

Freel Professional Corp

Freel Professional Corp

Be the first one to rate!

540 West Lake St., Suite 2 Tawas City, MI 48763

Practice Areas : Admiralty and Maritime Law

Davis Law Group PLLC

Davis Law Group PLLC

Be the first one to rate!

27600 Northwestern Hwy Ste 215 Southfield, MI 48034

Practice Areas : Criminal Law

Kathryn Wayne-Spindler & Associates

Kathryn Wayne-Spindler & Associates

Be the first one to rate!

425 West Huron Street, Suite 120 Milford, MI 48381

Practice Areas : Criminal Law

How it Works

It’s easy to find and book a lawyer and also to share your experience.

Find Your Lawyer

Find Your Lawyer

Explore top Michigan lawyers by city, practice area, and reviews.

Contact a Lawyer

Contact a Lawyer

Connect with trusted Michigan attorneys for fast, reliable help.

Review A Lawyer

Review A Lawyer

Rate Michigan lawyers and guide others to the best legal support.

Browse Lawyers

Find the Michigan Attorney for YOU!

Real Reviews from Clients

Across Michigan

Michigan Legal News

Proposed Evidence Rule Would Put Tribal Records on Equal Footing and Could Ease Proof of Indian Status in Federal Prosecutions – Turtle Talk

Proposed Evidence Rule Would Put Tribal Records on Equal Footing and Could Ease Proof of Indian Status in Federal Prosecutions – Turtle Talk

Russell Means shakes hands with Assistant Attorney General Kent Frizzell, father of Judge Gregory Frizzell of the Northern District of Oklahoma, as AIM signs a treaty to end the occupation of Wounded Knee; National Guardian Photographs; PHOTOS 213; box 9; folder 26; Tamiment Library/Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives, New York University. The federal judiciary has proposed amending Federal Rule of Evidence 902(1) to add “a federally recognized Indian Tribe or Nation” to the governments whose sealed and signed public documents are self-authenticating. The sovereignty argument is simple. Rule 902 already covers the United States, states, territories, political subdivisions, and even the former Panama Canal Zone. The Advisory Committee saw “no reason to differentiate” Tribes and Nations, and its proposed Committee Note says the amendment recognizes Tribal sovereignty and would conserve Tribal officials’ resources. Eight Tribes of the 574 contacted for comments responded to the Committee’s outreach, and all supported the amendment. Their comments emphasized sovereign parity, the unfairness of treating Tribal government records differently from those of other sovereigns, and the burden of requiring Tribal officials to provide extra authentication for routine official records. But the present push for the amendment is also tied to the post-McGirt expansion of federal Indian country criminal prosecutions in Oklahoma. Judge Gregory Frizzell of the Northern District of Oklahoma revived the proposal in 2024, and DOJ then advocated the amendment in part to address “inefficiencies and proof problems” in cases requiring proof of the Indian status of defendants or victims. That matters because prosecutors recently lost convictions in a handful of cases after problems admitting evidence of Indian status. But those cases didn’t necessarily turn on issues that the proposed amendment to Rule 902 would address. The Federal Defenders have voiced opposition to the proposed amendment. One concern they’ve highlighted is a scenario involving a non-Indian defendant prosecuted under the General Crimes Act for an offense against an Indian victim. Such a defendant may have no personal knowledge of the victim’s Indian status and little ability to investigate the relevant underlying records. Assistant Federal Public Defender Jami Johnson (Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma) argues that the amendment could, “as a practical matter,” function like an irrebuttable presumption on that element. The deeper tension is that while Tribal governments have a strong claim to equal treatment as sovereigns, the United States is also pushing for the rule amendment to strengthen its own exercise of criminal jurisdiction in Indian country. Opportunity to weigh in Additional Resources Source link

September 29, 2026

Civil Practice – Dangerous animal – Provocation

Civil Practice – Dangerous animal – Provocation

Where an order to euthanize a respondent’s dog has been challenged on appeal, that order must be vacated because the district court erred when rendering its findings and decision regarding provocation, including by failing to properly utilize an objective reasonable-person standard. “In this case involving a dangerous animal complaint under MCL 287.322, respondent appeals by leave granted the circuit court’s order affirming the district court’s order to euthanize respondent’s dog, Chance. We reverse the circuit court’s order of affirmance, vacate the district court’s order, and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. … “This case arises out of the injuries that a guest at the Port Huron home of respondent Pamela Wickings suffered on April 6, 2024, when Chance—an American Bulldog that weighs about 80 pounds—bit her on the nose. Respondent lived in the home with her boyfriend, Richard Macumber; her granddaughter, DR; and Chance. At the time of the incident, Chance was three years old and had lived with respondent for the entirety of the dog’s life. Most of the key facts are undisputed, except with respect to whether the guest was waving a shoe when Chance bit her. The guest noticed that Chance had her shoe by him. She then got down on the floor, put her face within less than six inches of Chance’s face, and sternly scolded him in a loud voice. Chance then bit off a portion of her nose. “At the district court hearing, the guest denied that she was holding the shoe while scolding Chance. However, Macumber and DR testified that the guest was waving the shoe while scolding Chance. … “At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court ruled that Chance was subject to an order of euthanasia as a ‘dangerous animal’ under MCL 287.322. The district court found that the guest did not provoke Chance and that she suffered a permanent and serious disfigurement. The circuit court affirmed the district court’s order. … “Respondent argues that the district court erred when rendering its findings and decision regarding provocation, including by failing to properly utilize an objective reasonable-person standard. We agree. … “Until today, there is no published authority interpreting or applying the definition of ‘provoke’ set forth in MCL 287.321(d). … “… The term ‘ordinary and reasonable person’ is a legal term of art that denotes an objective standard. … The legal meaning of such terminology was materially the same in the 1980s, when MCL 287.321 was enacted by 1988 PA 426, effective March 30, 1989. … The reference to an ‘ordinary dog’ in MCL 287.321(d) also indicates that an objective standard applies. “Therefore, the district court should have applied a wholly objective standard in determining whether the guest’s actions constituted provocation. That is, the district court should have considered whether getting down on the ground and putting one’s face less than six inches from the face of a large dog that had a chewable object, such as a shoe, that had been next to the dog, while simultaneously scolding the dog in a loud voice while possibly waving a shoe above the dog’s head, constituted ‘a willful act or omission that an ordinary and reasonable person would conclude is likely to precipitate the bite or attack by an ordinary dog or animal.’ MCL 287.321(d) (emphasis added). … “The district court thus relied in part on the guest’s subjective thoughts or feelings in concluding that her actions did not constitute provocation. By failing to apply a purely objective standard, the district court misconstrued or misapplied the statutory definition of ‘provoke’ in MCL 287.321(d). We therefore reverse the circuit court’s order of affirmance, vacate the district court’s order, and remand the case to the district court to make the appropriate findings and decision under the objective standard required by MCL 287.321(d). … “We reverse the circuit court’s order of affirmance, vacate the district court’s order, and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Roskey v. Wickings; MiLW No. 07-111060, 6 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals published; Riordan, J., joined by Gadola, J., Letica, J.; on appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court; Celeste M. Dunn for appellant; T. Allen Francis for appellee. Source link

September 29, 2026

Bryan Newland to Deliver Rennard Strickland Lecture, Sept. 30 – Turtle Talk

Bryan Newland to Deliver Rennard Strickland Lecture, Sept. 30 – Turtle Talk

The leading blog on legal issues in Indian Country The views and opinions expressed on Turtle Talk are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Michigan State University. Follow Blog via Email Join 11.5K other subscribers Source link

September 28, 2026

Featured in

AI Lawyer Finder

© 2025 Michigan Top Lawyers. All Rights Reserved. Powered by SolutionsPal | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service