Common Law States
Common law states are those that have relied on case law and judicial precedents as a large part of their law, similar to Michigan. These states do use written statutes and constitutions (called "codes" or "codified law") as well. Common law is just one part of the law in any law code, and if the law code did not already specifically address a potential issue, then courts will turn to common law sources (for example, case law or the United States Constitution) to help make that decision. So, common law does not exist in a vacuum; it is intertwined with codified law.
The United States is one of the few countries in which all of the states derive their legal system from the English common law tradition. According to the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 1 the common law includes , "the principles of law recognized by the courts of the State of Michigan as controlling in their decisions." In other words, the Michigan Judiciary has declared by rulings in cases that the following types of sources of law are included in the common law of the state of Michigan: E.g., The Michigan Supreme Court announced that "[t]he general common law principles of equity properly represent the law governing land trusts in Michigan. This court will endeavor to ‘preserve and expand’ those principles so long as they conform to the statutory language of the Land Trust Act." In re Land Trust of the City of Detroit, 478 Mich 919, 921 (2007) (internal citations omitted).
The Law of Michigan
Michigan is a common law state. In general, the common law of Michigan is the body of statutory and case law founded on English common law principles. The Michigan Constitution, MCL 600.1098 et seq., mandates that all courts be governed by the rules set forth in the Revised Judicature Act of 1961. The Revised Judicature Act was enacted to provide "a system for the administration of justice by the courts of this state that is efficient, just and cost effective." Id.
The Michigan courts also have inherent and/or inherent and constitutional powers. The scope of a court’s inherent powers is limited only by public policy, "legislative will," and the Michigan Constitution. In re Miller, 186 Mich App 488, 490-491 (1990). Michigan Courts of Appeals utilize the doctrine of stare decisis in ruling on cases. This doctrine is "based on considerations of common sense and good sense in administering justice" In re Miller at 490.
Michigan courts have the power to establish rules for carrying into effect the statutes, and the Revised Judicature Act establishes rules for all Michigan courts. Mich Const Art VI §4. Chief Justice Young’s dissent in People v McKendrick, 188 Mich App 54 (1991), was authored to provide a comprehensive description of the enactment and structure of Michigan’s court rules. He wrote: "The Judicial Conference of the District of Michigan submitted a report to Congress outlining the deficiencies in the operation of the various district courts of Michigan. That report detailed the judges’ concerns regarding the increased administrative burdens resulting from an expanded jurisdiction and volume of cases and the lack of resources to meet those burdens. In March of 1963, Congress enacted the District Court Improvement Act of 1963, PL 88-132, 77 Stat 212. In part, that act was designed to improve the administration of the district courts by transferring several positions from local to central authority." McKendrick, 188 Mich App at 71-72 (Young, J., dissenting).
Common Law Marriage in Michigan
Michigan does not recognize common law marriage. Couples cannot create a valid marriage in Michigan until they have obtained a marriage license and have either participated in a marriage ceremony or completed a self-uniting marriage ceremony. Michigan abolished common law marriage in 1957. In most cases, Michigan will not recognize a common law marriage. However, Michigan will recognize a common law marriage entered into before 1957, if the marriage satisfies the common law marriage requirements of another state. Therefore, persons who married in another state that recognizes common law marriage, and who would otherwise qualify for a common law marriage in Michigan, may have a valid marriage in Michigan.
Effects of Common Law on Michigan Case Law
Common law has exercised a significant influence on Michigan’s legal precedents in various ways. The courts have relied on common law principles to resolve disputes, interpret statutes, and create legal doctrines. Significantly, common law has often acted as a source of law in cases where there were no applicable statutes or regulations. When Michigan did not have legislation addressing a particular issue, the courts frequently looked to common law for guidance.
One notable example of common law’s impact on Michigan law can be found in the area of torts and personal injury. In Peninsula Props LLC v City of Grand Rapids, the Michigan Supreme Court noted that "[c]ourts apply common law to resolve controversies in the absence of an applicable statute." The court derived its decision from common law, essentially determining that the government was not liable for injuries caused by defects in public highways under common law precedents. This decision meant that residents like Milford could not sue the city for injuries sustained on public sidewalks because there was no statutory provision allowing for such lawsuits in Michigan .
In contract law, common law principles have also been heavily employed by Michigan courts. For example, in Hastings Mutual Insurance Company v Safety King, the Michigan Court of Appeals reaffirmed common law principles when discussing tortious bad faith claims against an insurer. Despite the absence of a specific statute in Michigan outlining causes of action against insurers, the court based its decision on common law, relying on a series of prior common law organ cases.
The Michigan Supreme Court has also relied on common law principles to create new legal doctrines. For instance, in McCormick v Carrier, the Court established the doctrine of "apparent agency." It held that to succeed in a claim of apparent agency, there must be a misrepresentation of principal or agent by a person, and a change in position leading to detriment by a third party. This case set a precedent that required parties to consider common law principles of agency relations when dealing with third parties and their misrepresentations.
These examples illustrate that even with Michigan not being a statutory hardcore common law state, the influence of common law remains significantly intact.
Differences between the Common Law and Statute of Law
In the United States, the two main sources of law are the common law and statutory law. The common law, originating in England, is based on case law and the decisions made by judges. Statutory law, on the other hand, is law that has been written by legislators. Common law and statutory law differ in a number of ways.
One major difference between common law and statutory law in Michigan is that behind common law, one single activity may be ruled by multiple sets of laws. For example, if a woman fell and slipped on ice at a store a few weeks ago and injured herself, she could have a case for negligence due to the store failing to eliminate a hazardous condition. She could also have a case for premises liability under the common law, which is where she got her injuries not due to causation but because the store lacked an obligation to keep its customers safe.
Statistics show that the most successful legal cases are those in which both common law and statutory law are used. If the slip-and-fall claimant in the example above used both common and statutory law to support their case, they’d be more likely to win.
Another difference between common law and statutory law in Michigan is that judges can interpret common law but not statutory law. Statutory law can only be changed by legislation. Judges can’t overwrite legislation, although they can always interpret statutes in different ways. For example, if a statute says "step stools are required to help the short and elderly reach high places," a judge can interpret that to mean using step-savers of all heights to reach high places.
Navigating Michigan law
Navigating Michigan’s legal system can vary quite a bit depending on which of these legal principles apply to your specific case. However, by arming yourself with the right information about Michigan’s common law and statutory law systems, as well as some guidance about how the law operates in Michigan, you can effectively navigate the legal system and avoid unnecessary pitfalls.
First things first, familiarize yourself with commonly used legal terminology when it comes to Michigan law so that you know exactly what you’re reading when it comes to Michigan statutes and case law. Understanding basic legal principles will properly prepare you for reading legal documents relevant to your case.
Second, be prepared to read through relevant Michigan statutes, as well as any common law on the subject if it exists. When dealing with any civil or criminal litigation, you will be learning more about Michigan law each step of the way . The more equipped you are with the relevant information, the better equipped you are to talk to your attorney and navigate the Michigan court system.
If you’re facing a criminal charge or any kind of litigation, having an experienced Michigan attorney will help ensure that you have the same legal advantages that an experienced attorney will have. Many people think that they can simply take the relevant Michigan statutes and case law they find online, figure out what they apply to, and solve their own case. But, this is usually not practical – most people simply do not have the time or experience to do this.
When it comes to Michigan law, you’ll learn quickly that there are certain things you can’t just handle by yourself. That’s when having a Michigan attorney experienced in the legal area you are facing charges or litigation in is essential.
+ There are no comments
Add yours