Duncan v. State
300 Mich. App. 176
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Indigent criminal defense class-action challenge against Michigan state and Governor seeking injunctive relief to improve representation quality.
- Trial court denied the state’s summary-disposition motions; class certification was at issue.
- Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Henry v Dow Chemical Co.; discovery contemplated.
- On remand, state renewed summary-disposition motion and argued lack of standing, res judicata, and failure to state a claim.
- Trial court found discovery appropriate and denied the state’s motion; the state appealed for interlocutory relief.
- Appellate court affirmed, lifting prior stay and addressing class certification, standing, and related defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly certified/continued a class action | Duncan plaintiffs met prerequisites under MCR 3.501 | State argues lack of commonality/superiority and premature certification | Yes, court did not abuse discretion; discovery permitted under Henry and MCR 3.501(B)(3)(b) |
| Whether the plaintiffs stated a claim upon which relief can be granted | Plaintiffs pleaded declaratory/injunctive relief claims | Claims fail under MCR 2.116(C)(8) due to lack of justiciable claims | No; law-of-the-case forecloses reconsideration; claims deemed justiciable (result favorable to plaintiffs) |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing under LSEA framework | Standing satisfied under prudential standard | LSEA change undermines standing; no standing | Standing denied or limited only for purposes of result; law-of-the-case applied |
| Whether res judicata bars the civil action | Claims arise from a systemic issue not litigated in criminal trials | Single transaction/identity of parties; should bar | Not barred; res judicata does not apply to these claims |
| Whether law-of-the-case governs reconsideration of the claim | Law-of-the-case should not preclude reconsideration given new standards | Law-of-the-case bars reconsideration when no material change | Law-of-the-case did not bar reconsideration; complex history governs outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry v Dow Chemical Co, 484 Mich 483 (2009) (remedy and discovery standards for class actions; Henry informs Henry-based discovery)
- Duncan v Michigan, 284 Mich App 246 (2009) (original Duncan I; class-action certification and standing context)
- Duncan v Michigan, 486 Mich 906 (2010) (Supreme Court decision on justiciability; prematurity issues highlighted)
- Lansing Sch Ed Ass’n v Lansing Bd of Ed, 487 Mich 349 (2010) (reinstated standing framework post-LSEA decision)
- Stoudemire v Stoudemire, 248 Mich App 325 (2001) (res judicata standard and its application in Michigan)
- Gideon v Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel; foundational for claims challenged)
- Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for evaluating effectiveness of counsel)
- Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (illustrative generic example (not from this case))