Judge Brock Swartzle is a proven rule-of-law conservative, and you can judge that for yourself by reading his published opinions. If a candidate claims to be a rule-of-law conservative, but you can’t read the proof for yourself, they’re certainly not proven, and they might not be as conservative as they claim. 

  • TruGreen LP v Dep’t of Treasury — Mich App — (2020) (Docket No. 344142) (Swartzle, J, dissenting) (dissent begins about halfway down the page—disagreeing with the majority opinion and concluding that, contrary to the majority’s analysis, the taxpayer did qualify for the use-tax exemption under the plain meaning of the tax law).
  • People v James, 326 Mich App 98 (2018) (Docket No. 342504) (Swartzle, J, writing for the majority) (tolling the statute of limitations for sexual assault while the criminal defendant was out of state).
  • People v Mullins, 322 Mich App 151 (2017) (Docket No. 334098) (Swartzle, PJ, writing for the majority) (holding that the defendant could be held criminally liable for reportedly promising her daughter a new horse if the child would lie to her teacher and accuse her father of sexual abuse).
  • People v Roberts, — Mich App—(2020) (Docket No. 339424) (Swartzle, J, concurring dubitante) (concurrence begins about 2/3 down the page—identifying several problems with our SupremeCourt’s opinion inPeople v Beck with respect to the use of “acquitted conduct” at sentencing).
  • Fisher v Kalamazoo Regional Psychiatric Hosp, —Mich App—(2019) (Docket No. 343283)(Swartzle, PJ, writing for the majority) (concluding that the state commission had over-stepped its authority with respect to the state’s worker’s compensation program).
  • D’Agostini Land Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 322 Mich App 545 (2018) (Docket No. 336599) (Swartzle, J, writing for the majority) (reversing the department and finding in favor of the plaintiff taxpayer with regard to a small-business tax credit).
  • Estate of Lewis by Lewis v Rosebrook, 329 Mich App 85 (2019) (Docket No.343765) (Swartzle, PJ, writing for the majority) (holding that one co-owner of a joint checking account could not drain the funds without liability to the other co-owner).
  • Mitchell v Kalamazoo Anesthesiology, 321 Mich App 144 (2017) (Docket No.331959) (Swartzle, J, writing for the majority) (reversing the trial court and holding that the plaintiff patient should have been allowed to argue at trial that the defendant mistakenly mixed up her MRI).
  • Edwards v Detroit News, Inc, 322 Mich App 1 (2017) (Docket No.334058) (Swartzle, J, writing for the majority)(concluding that the Detroit News was protected under the First Amendment when it asserted in an editorial that the plaintiff was a“leader”of the KKK).
  • Gaulden v MPSERS Bd, unpublished (Docket No. 340849) (per curiam) (vacating the trial court’s decision and remanding for further proceedings where plaintiff showed that he received highly questionable advice from the government’s office of retirement services about when to retire, and new facts showed that plaintiff missed a prior hearing because of a stroke).


Professional Writings