After conflicting rulings, the Michigan Court of Appeals says there are no exceptions to a one-year deadline for suing the state.
This week’s decision means any plaintiff who sued outside of that timeline, but during a period when the court said it was okay, could have their case dismissed.
Attorney Jon Marko said that blocks people who have been hurt by the state from seeking justice.
“We fully believe that there should be a reprieve for these individuals who were doing everything that they were supposed to do at the time that they filed their lawsuits and were hurt. The law changed. And now, in the middle of the case, they’re being told, ‘Well, sorry. Your case is being kicked out of court,’” Marko said in an interview Tuesday.
Marko said he plans to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court, where the matter began.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court found there shouldn’t be any exceptions to a one-year window to sue the state. That’s usually the case anyway when filing a lawsuit before the Court of Claims, where suits against the state usually end up.
But the 2023 Supreme Court opinion overturned a past decision from 2020 that said cases filed in circuit court against the state could take more time.
Marko said those cases usually involve civil rights complaints and aren’t easy to get filed right away.
“These things take time. These individuals have to find attorneys, the attorneys have to do an investigation,” Marko said.
In a series of rulings last year, the Court of Appeals first found that 2023 Supreme Court ruling applied retroactively. Then it gave an exception for people who had sued during the time frame between the Supreme Court decisions, when plaintiffs did have more time.
While considering the present case, judges questioned if last year’s exception ruling went against the retroactivity ruling. To work out the matter, the Court of Appeals assigned the question to a seven-judge panel.
Six of those judges found the second ruling did violate the first, referencing each previous case by name in their opinion.
“In Flamont, this Court was squarely presented with the question of whether Christie’s application was retroactive or prospective. This Court’s answer that Christie is fully retroactive was directly germane to the question with which it was presented. Therefore, although this Court raised important questions in Landin about the equity of enforcing Christie against those whom lost their claims in reliance on Tyrrell, the Landin panel was nevertheless bound by the Flamont panel,” Judge Allie Greenleaf Maldonado wrote on behalf of the court.
Marko said he feels the appeals court may have felt limited by the Supreme Court on what it could do.
“I think that the Supreme Court needs to speak on this and I think that might have been reflected in why there was such a large amount of judges that ruled against the injured parties,” Marko said.
