District Court, E.D. Michigan — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Atlantic Ltd. Partnership-XI v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2000-01-28
This case involved a dispute over enforcement of a prepayment premium provision in a mortgage note for a $26.75 million loan from defendant John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance to plaintiff Atlantic Ltd. Partnership. Plaintiff prepaid the loan early in 1998 and challenged the $503,114 premium as unreasonable and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding the premium reasonable at roughly 2% of principal, enforceable per the contract's formula, and that defendant did not violate good faith by insisting on the agreed terms.
business & regulatoryproperty
Parks v. LaFace Records
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1999-11-18 · cited 7×
Rosa Parks sued Outkast, LaFace Records, and related parties after they released a rap song titled "Rosa Parks" on the album Aquemini, alleging unauthorized use of her name in connection with music containing profanity and derogatory content. The case centered on whether Parks could block the song title under trademark, unfair competition, or right-of-publicity theories despite the work being an expressive artistic creation not literally about her or the Civil Rights Movement. The court denied Parks's motion for summary judgment and injunctive relief, instead granting summary judgment to the defendants. It reasoned that the defendants had not used her name to falsely suggest endorsement or to misappropriate her own recorded performances, and that the First Amendment protected artistic use of her name in this context.
free speechcivil rights
Rice v. Trippett
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1999-08-12 · cited 5×
In Rice v. Trippett, a state prisoner filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1978 guilty plea conviction for second-degree murder and life sentence, after exhausting various state post-conviction proceedings. The respondent moved to dismiss the petition as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which applies to petitions filed after April 24, 1996. The court denied the motion, holding that the petition was filed within the limitations period because the time during properly filed state collateral review applications is tolled under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), and the untolled periods between April 24, 1996, and the filing date totaled less than one year. The decision rested on the principle that prisoners whose convictions became final before AEDPA's effective date receive a reasonable one-year grace period, adjusted for tolling during state proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure
Rimco Acquisition Co. v. Johnson
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1999-08-06 · cited 1×
This case involves a dispute over title to property in Highland Park, Michigan, where the plaintiff purchased the land after a city tax sale for unpaid property taxes, seeking to eliminate a prior federal tax lien held by the United States for the original owner's unpaid income taxes. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the federal tax lien remains valid because the plaintiff failed to provide the required notice of the nonjudicial tax sale under Internal Revenue Code § 7425. The court also rejected the plaintiff's request to stay the proceedings due to the bankruptcy of its parent company, finding that the automatic stay provisions do not apply since the United States is not seeking to possess or control the property. As a result, the case was remanded to state court after the United States was dismissed as a party.
propertytaxesfederal power
Bartell v. Lohiser
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1998-07-01 · cited 12×
Ella Bartell sued multiple Michigan state agencies, officials, and private foster care providers after the Jackson County Probate Court terminated her parental rights to her son William in 1996, alleging violations of her civil rights, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act based on inadequate services and the handling of her case. The district court granted summary judgment to the nine remaining defendants on the federal claims. The court reasoned that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they had provided extensive reunification services consistent with state and federal law, the probate court's findings of Bartell's inability to care for William were supported by evidence of her emotional and intellectual limitations, and no violation of the ADA or Rehabilitation Act occurred. The court dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed an unserved defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
civil rightsfamily law
United States v. Blanchard
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1998-06-09 · cited 1×
The case involved a defendant who pleaded guilty in 1997 to conspiracy to distribute marijuana under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and later moved in 1998 to vacate his sentence, arguing that the district's jury selection plan unconstitutionally discriminated by race in forming the grand jury that indicted him, relying on the Sixth Circuit's Ovalle decision. The court denied the motion. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(2) and precedents such as Davis v. United States, claims of grand jury defects must be raised before trial or are waived absent a showing of cause; the defendant failed to establish cause, as neither counsel's failure to recognize the claim nor arguments about novelty or futility qualified under Murray v. Carrier and Bousley v. United States. The court also denied a certificate of appealability, finding no substantial showing of a denied constitutional right.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights