The case involved plaintiffs who won a tax refund of $23,466.81 for 1980 windfall profit taxes and then moved for $25,000 in attorney fees and costs under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. The court denied the motion after finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the government's position in the civil proceeding was unreasonable, a required element under the statute (along with prevailing party status and exhaustion of remedies, both conceded by the government). The core reasoning examined the split in authority on whether prelitigation conduct could be considered but concluded that only post-filing conduct mattered under the statutory language, that the case was one of first impression in which the government advanced its best arguments, and that no evidence showed harassment or other improper conduct.
This case involved a plaintiff's claim for Social Security disability benefits based on alleged hypertension and other impairments, which proceeded through multiple levels of administrative and judicial review after an initial denial. An ALJ found the plaintiff disabled, but the Appeals Council reversed that finding, concluding she did not meet the required impairment criteria and that her subjective allegations of disability were not credible. The district court affirmed the Appeals Council's decision over a magistrate's recommendation for remand, and on the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, the court held that the Appeals Council may make an initial credibility determination when the ALJ has not done so and that its conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.
In this case, Consumers Power Company and Bechtel Power Corporation sued suppliers including Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Company, J.W. Rex Company, and Southern Bolt & Fastener Corporation for providing defective reactor vessel anchor bolts used in a nuclear power plant, alleging contract breaches as well as tort claims of negligence and breach of implied warranty in tort after some bolts cracked or proved excessively hard. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the tort claims, arguing that only economic losses were at issue in a commercial transaction between businesses involving specially manufactured goods. The court granted those motions, holding that the Uniform Commercial Code governs such disputes to the exclusion of tort remedies under Michigan's economic loss doctrine, as established in precedents like McGhee v. General Motors Corp., because the claims involved only damage to the goods themselves without personal injury or harm to other property. The court denied related motions to dismiss Bechtel as a party. This decision limits recovery to contractual remedies in purely commercial settings.
This case involves a breach of contract dispute where Union Carbide sued Consumers Power Company for refusing to accept deliveries of residual fuel oil under their agreement. The court addressed the appropriate measure of damages under the Uniform Commercial Code § 2-708 for the oil not accepted by Consumers. The court decided that damages should be calculated based on the seller's lost profits under subsection (2) rather than the market price differential under subsection (1). The core reasoning was that Union Carbide, as a middleman, had a pricing mechanism that guaranteed profit without assuming risks of price changes, and using market price damages would overcompensate the seller.
This case involved the Sunrise Lions Club's admission of Lore A. Rogers as a member, which violated the International Association of Lions Clubs' rules prohibiting women, leading the International to revoke the club's charter. The plaintiffs sued under Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, alleging sex discrimination in access to a place of public accommodation or public service. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering the International to restore the club's charter. It reasoned that the Lions clubs qualify as public accommodations and public services under the Act, are not exempt private clubs, that Sunrise has standing as a corporate entity, and that the plaintiffs satisfied all four requirements for injunctive relief, including a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm from the revocation.
This case involves retired employees of Ryerson & Haynes suing the company for reducing their vested medical insurance benefits under a 1979 collective bargaining agreement with the United Auto Workers, after a 1982 agreement cut the company's premium contributions in half. The suits, removed to federal court under the Labor Management Relations Act, alleged breach of contract and violations of federal labor law, with plaintiffs seeking to apply offensive collateral estoppel based on a prior state court win by one retiree (Nichols). The court denied the defendant's motions to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, ruling that the three-year ERISA limitations period applied rather than the six-month period from Del Costello, and also denied the plaintiffs' motion for offensive collateral estoppel due to fairness concerns over the defendant's limited prior litigation and settlement. The core reasoning centered on interpreting the CBA language for vested benefits and exercising discretion to avoid unfair prejudice in applying estoppel.
