The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued its published decision in Spaulding v Swiacki (July 2021), which posted a warning sign to public officials who might consider proceeding with a public meeting, while knowing in advance that the meeting was not properly posted on the public body’s website, in accordance with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”). The Court’s warning sign states, in effect, that such action could result in a public official being held personally liable for statutory damages, court costs and attorney fees, even if the meeting was otherwise conducted in substantial compliance with OMA’s notice requirements.

The United States Supreme Court recently considered the subject of governmental takings in the case of Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid, which involved a state regulation granting union organizers access to agricultural employers’ land.

Michael J. Huff, an associate of the firm, was named by Best Lawyers in America as a member of the “Ones to Watch” 2022.

Mika Meyers has 26 attorneys included in the 2022 edition of the Best Lawyers in America.

The firm is pleased to announce that five of its attorneys were named Lawyers of the Year by Best Lawyers in America.

A recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision issued on May 13, 2021 held that documents otherwise discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) are not generally rendered exempt merely because they provide the basis for a closed meeting under the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) or are included in the official record of the same. Accordingly, the Appeals Court decision establishes that, although the minutes and transcripts of a closed session are exempt from disclosure, various documents that may be relevant to or relied upon in the same are not necessarily exempt. As a result of this ruling, it is important to remember that absent a specific exemption under FOIA, files are ultimately disclosable.