Latest 2 Cases: State v. Benson (Criminal Law), Martin v. Rolling Hills Hospital, LLC (Health Law)

A Constitutional Commitment to Access to Literacy: Bridging the Chasm Between Negative and Positive Rights

EVAN CAMINKER

Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker discusses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in which that court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause secures schoolchildren a fundamental right to a “basic minimum education” that “can plausibly impart literacy.” Caminker—one of the co-counsel for the plaintiffs in that case—explains why the decision is so remarkable and why the supposed dichotomy between positive and negative rights is not as stark as canonically claimed.

Read More

State v. Benson

Docket: W2017-01119-SC-R11-CD

Opinion Date: April 30, 2020

Judge: Page

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals reversing Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder and remanding the case for a new trial, holding that the proof at trial did not fairly raise the issue of whether or not Defendant killed the victim in self-defense, and therefore, the trial court properly exercised its gate-keeping role in refusing to charge the jury on self-defense. In reversing Defendant's conviction, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that self-defense should have been charged and that the error was not harmless. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) it is the role of the trial court to make a threshold determination of whether self-defense has been fairly raised by the evidence and thus should be submitted to the jury; (2) the trial court correctly concluded that the evidence in this case did not fairly raise as an issue that Defendant reasonably feared imminent death or serious bodily injury to justify his use of deadly force; and (3) therefore, the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury regarding self-defense.

Martin v. Rolling Hills Hospital, LLC

Docket: M2016-02214-SC-R11-CV

Opinion Date: April 29, 2020

Judge: Clark

Areas of Law: Health Law, Medical Malpractice

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing Plaintiffs' health care liability action as time-barred, holding that Plaintiffs were not entitled to the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations due to their noncompliance with Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-121 (section 121). Before Plaintiffs filed a health care liability action Plaintiffs attempted to comply with section 121 by notifying Defendants of their intent to file suit. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily nonsuited their lawsuit. Less than one year later, Plaintiffs filed a second lawsuit alleging the same health care liability claims against Defendants. To establish the timeliness of the second lawsuit, Plaintiffs relied on the savings statute. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs' pre-suit notice was not substantially compliant with section 121, and therefore, Plaintiffs were not entitled to the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations so that their first lawsuit was not timely filed. Therefore, Defendants argued, Plaintiffs' second lawsuit was untimely. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding (1) Plaintiffs failed to establish either substantial compliance or extraordinary cause to excuse their noncompliance with section 121; and (2) therefore, Plaintiffs could not rely on the one-year savings statute to establish the timeliness of their lawsuit.