You are incorrect in your statement regarding Fink. Look closely, Washington clearly stated that she would support it IF it became an option. She also clearly gave the background on the law stating that it was a law and was no longer. I think your biased statement is showing.

I wanted to take an opportunity to amplify and clarify one of the points of discussion that seems to have generated a bit of confusion: the role of summary disposition in civil litigation. Although my background is primarily in criminal law, I have practiced civil litigation, and I am well-familiar with the role of summary disposition as a fundamental and, I thought, relatively non-controversial aspect of law.

Basically, summary disposition is a method by which the lawyers file a motion asking a judge to determine – often before the lawyers go through the expense of engaging in discovery, taking depositions or retaining experts – whether the other side’s case is strong enough to continue. The judge considers the information presented and decides whether there are sufficient facts to create a genuine question that a jury should decide, or whether a party even has a legal right to the remedy it seeks. If, in the judge’s determination, there are no genuine questions of fact, or there is no legal basis for the claim, the case is dismissed.

During the first panel, in response to a question about the relative merits of jury trial versus summary disposition, I mentioned that the majority of civil cases are dismissed by a judge ruling on a motion for summary disposition. During the second panel, one of the candidates said she felt that view was “patently wrong.”

In fact…

A 2011 study (1) by the Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Office looked at 93 randomly selected cases in Kent, Macomb and Oakland counties that were ordered into mediation of their dispute, and in which the mediator valued the case at $25,000 or less. Of those 93 cases, 77 settled, 9 were subject to summary disposition, and 7 went to trial. So – aside from those cases that settled – the majority of cases in this study were disposed of by summary disposition.

In a separate 2011 study (2) of 396 Michigan civil cases in which neither case evaluation nor mediation were relied upon to resolve the dispute, 86 percent either settled or were dismissed. Eleven percent of the cases were disposed of by summary disposition and 3 percent were disposed of by court verdict (either after jury or bench trial, presumably).

A paper prepared by the Michigan Legislature in 2007 (3) recounted the history of Michigan’s courts and found that, in 2006, “the majority (40.4 percent) of civil cases were disposed of by default, consent judgment, settlement, or summary disposition. Over 35 percent were dismissed by the plaintiff. Two percent resulted in a jury verdict or bench verdict.”

The premise of the question my opponent and I addressed was the value of jury trials in resolving civil litigation. My response accurately stated the fact that most cases which do not settle are resolved by the court on a motion for summary disposition. But perhaps more importantly, I highlighted the fact that, while it is an essential feature of civil jurisprudence, hardly any cases are resolved of by a trial.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this important question.

Mike

1 – [link]

2 – [link]

3 – [link]

For more on court performance measures, see this report: [link]

Marcia McBrien
Public Information Officer, Michigan Supreme Court

For readers who don’t know Marcia McBrien, she serves as public information officer for the Michigan Supreme Court.

First, court performance measurements are not a new idea; in fact, the National Center for State Courts first proposed a set of performance measures, “CourTools,” in 2005. The 10 performance measurement headings include “access and fairness,” “time to disposition,” “trial date certainty,” and “effective use of jurors,” among others.

Why have performance measurement for courts? True, we may not be able to measure the quality of justice — a fear voiced by some who are skeptical of performance measurement. But we can and should measure the many areas that affect the quality of the public’s experience, as well as the court’s efficiency.

Consider, for example, some of the possible metrics under the heading of “access and fairness.” The NCSC’s suggested survey asks participants to agree or disagree with such statements as “Finding the courthouse was easy,” “I was able to get my court business done in a reasonable amount of time,” “The judge listened to my side of the story before he or she made a decision,” “As I leave the court, I know what to do next about my case.”

Other performance measurements do concern a court’s efficiency, but usually in ways that affect public service. For example, by measuring case age at disposition, a court can tell whether it is resolving cases in a timely way. We can also measure whether courts are making good use of jurors. A court that “over-summons” prospective jurors, only to send most of them home or delay their service until another day, wastes its own resources and the potential jurors’ time.

The forum moderator asked an excellent question: what metrics should courts use? A series of focus groups, including 100 Michigan judges and court administrators, addressed that same question this spring and it is still under discussion. The performance measures that Michigan courts adopt will not, however, be about moving cases through the system as fast as possible. Performance measurement is really about the quality of service to the public.

In response to an emailed question, city clerk Jackie Beaudry gave an answer confirming Aermentrout’s description:

Years ago, we stamped them with a message that said, “Please use $.65 postage” (I think at the time it was $.63), but sometimes the Post Office would weigh a voter’s ballot and only charge the 1st class rate (Forever stamp) … [T]heir rates are always changing … so we stopped with the note and if we get calls, we encourage voters to check with their Post Office. We see most ballots come back with $.65 postage and a few with only the Forever stamp. I’m not aware of any being returned to sender for Postage Due, but you might check with the Ann Arbor Post Office to see if there is an official policy. Unofficially, I think they are pretty good about getting us the returned ballots quickly.