In Myers v. United States, Mary Myers sued to quiet title to her claimed one-half interest in the couple's residence after her husband Matthew Myers entered a 1987 plea agreement in a federal drug and RICO case; the government counterclaimed to enforce the agreement, which required the couple to place a lien on the home in lieu of forfeiture and to transfer it if needed for civil tax collection. The court held that the plea agreement was a valid and enforceable contract against Mary Myers under Michigan law. It reasoned that the essential elements of a contract were met, including consideration from the government's promise not to prosecute family members or pursue further charges, that Mary Myers was competent and not under duress when she signed, and that the agreement's terms bound both spouses to convey the property for tax purposes regardless of her lack of personal tax liability.
This case involves a product liability lawsuit brought by the estates of three individuals killed in a 1992 house fire, alleging that a defective ballast in a fluorescent light fixture manufactured by Advance Transformer Co. overheated and ignited the blaze. The plaintiffs asserted claims for manufacturing defects and design defects under both breach of implied warranty and negligence theories, as well as failure to warn. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the negligent manufacturing claim and all design defect claims due to insufficient evidence, but denied summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim under breach of warranty and on causation, finding that expert opinions and circumstantial evidence created genuine issues of material fact for a jury to decide whether a defect attributable to the manufacturer caused the fire.
The case concerned a dispute between Dayton Hudson's ERISA employee health benefit plan and Auto-Owners no-fault auto insurance policy over primary liability for roughly $22,000 in medical expenses incurred by a covered employee injured in a car accident. Both the plan and the policy contained coordination of benefits clauses, and the plan sought reimbursement from the insurer as subrogee. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the plan was primarily responsible. It reasoned that ERISA requires giving effect to the plan's terms in conflicts with traditional insurance policies, and under federal common law the plan's clause did not subordinate itself to no-fault coverage while the policy explicitly did subordinate itself to other plans.
The EEOC sued Sara Lee Corporation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, alleging that the company terminated four quality control inspectors due to their age as part of a reduction in force. The court addressed the defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on multiple issues, ruling that the severance waivers signed by the employees were invalid because they were part of a group termination program and failed to meet the ADEA's requirements for knowing and voluntary waivers. It further held that the employees did not ratify the invalid waivers by retaining benefits, that one employee's administrative charge satisfied requirements for all, and that no statute of limitations barred the EEOC's claims, while rejecting the EEOC's request for injunctive relief regarding future waivers. The court denied full dismissal but required the EEOC to resume individual conciliation efforts before pursuing back pay claims.
The case involved dairy farmers who purchased Harvestore silos from 1967 to 1979, alleging that defendants A.O. Smith and Harvestore fraudulently marketed the silos as oxygen-limiting and airtight despite internal knowledge they were not, leading to claims of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and civil RICO violations based on resulting economic losses from spoiled feed and reduced dairy production. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine, statutes of limitations, and lack of proximate causation. The court held that the economic loss doctrine barred the fraud and conspiracy claims because the dispute arose from a commercial sale of goods involving only economic losses properly addressed under contract and UCC remedies rather than tort. However, it denied summary judgment on the RICO claim, finding genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the four-year statute of limitations barred the claim and whether defendants' alleged conduct proximately caused the plaintiffs' damages.
business & regulatorycriminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure
This case involved a contract dispute in which Michigan State University sued Research Corporation and its subsidiary Research Corporation Technologies for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and related claims arising from a 1950 agreement under which RC was to patent and commercialize MSU faculty inventions, with proceeds shared between the parties. After MSU attempted to terminate the contract in 1995, RCT initiated arbitration proceedings, prompting MSU to file suit and seek to enjoin arbitration. The court granted the defendants' motion to stay the litigation and compel arbitration. It reasoned that federal law strongly favors arbitration, the contract's broad arbitration clause covered all of MSU's claims, the agreement remained valid and enforceable after RCT's assignment from RC, and MSU had ratified the assignment through its conduct over many years.
