Humphrey v. Kleinhardt, 157 F.R.D. 404 (W.D. Mich. 1994)
Court held, “It has been long established that the Attorney General is the sole and proper legal representative of the State and its officers”
Attorney General v. Michigan Public Service Com’n, 625 N.W.2d 16 (Mich.App. 2000)
AG challenged a decision of the state Public Service Commission, which was also represented by the AG’s office. Court held the attorney general must appoint independent counsel for an agency if the attorney general is an actual party opposing the agency. The court reviewed cases from a number of states and found a “majority rule…
Granholm v. Michigan Public Service Commission, 243 Mich. App. 487, 625 N.W.2d 16 (Mich. App. 2000)
The Attorney General challenged a decision of the state Public Service Commission. The Commission was also represented by the Attorney General’s office. The Michigan Court of Appeals analyzed the applicability of conflict-of-interest rules to the Attorney General’s office and concluded that the Attorney General must appoint independent counsel for an agency if the Attorney General…
Federated Insurance Co. v. Oakland Co. Road Commission, 475 Mich. 286, 715 N.W.2d 846 (Mich. 2006)
Plaintiff sued defendant to recover costs for environmental cleanup. Plaintiff’s suit was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. Plaintiffs failed to file a timely motion to appeal the decision. The Attorney General filed a timely appeal as an intervenor on behalf of the people of the state of Michigan and the Michigan Department of Environmental…
Fieger v. Cox, 274 Mich. App. 449 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007)
The Attorney General investigated an attorney for election law violations. The attorney’s claims that the Attorney General had exceeded his authority in pursuing the campaign finance investigation. After describing the broad powers of the Michigan Attorney General, which include both common law powers and those derived from statute, the court noted that “unless there is…
People v. Waterstone (I), No. 09-015867-01-AR (Wayne Cty. 3rd Cir. Ct., Crim. Div., Sept. 29, 2009)
In the course of drug trafficking trial, the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney allegedly suborned perjury in order to protect the identity of a confidential informant. Judge Waterstone became aware of this perjury and knowingly allowed it to occur. After the defendant was convicted, and the perjury was discovered, defendant sued Waterstone and others, alleging civil rights…
People v. Waterstone (III), No. 140775 (Mich., June 4, 2010)
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the disqualification of the Attorney General from prosecuting a judge who had previously been represented in a related civil proceeding by another part of the Attorney General’s office. While recognizing that the Attorney General is subject to the rules of professional conduct, the court held that disqualification is not required…
People v. Waterstone (II), No. 294667 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2010)
Judge Waterstone sought to disqualify the Attorney General’s office from standing as prosecution, claiming that its representation of her in the civil rights case and the current investigation were an inherent conflict of interest. The Court of Appeals determined that in this case, there was no actual conflict of interest requiring disqualification at this time….
Attorney General v. PowerPick Players’ Club of Mich., LLC, 287 Mich. App. 13, 44 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010);
The attorney general, acting on behalf of the people, is a proper party to bring an action to abate a public nuisance or restrain unlawful acts which constitute a public nuisance.
