Charles Wycliffe Joiner

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.

taxesprocedurefederal power

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.

healthcareprocedure

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.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatory

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.

civil rights

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a challenge by a plaintiff seeking to open an adult bookstore in Ann Arbor, who moved for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the city's zoning ordinance regulating adult entertainment businesses, including restrictions on locations and limits on the percentage of adult materials sold. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of her claims that the ordinance was unconstitutionally restrictive, vague, or overbroad. The core reasoning was that the ordinance's allowance for up to 20% adult materials without triggering zoning rules, combined with designated zones for compliant adult businesses, did not amount to a ban on such materials, was justified by the goal of preventing urban blight from concentrated adult businesses, and left ample opportunities for distribution without violating First Amendment protections.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

This is an employment discrimination case in which plaintiff Rubin Brantley sued his former employer, Zantop International Airlines, alleging racial discrimination and claiming that a performance evaluation report accusing him of being drunk and unreliable at work was libelous. The court addressed the defendant's motion to dismiss Count IV, the libel claim. The court denied dismissal of the libel claim itself, reasoning that Michigan law treats intra-corporate communications of defamatory material as sufficient publication to support the action. The court granted dismissal of the request for exemplary and punitive damages, however, because the Michigan libel statute's provisions allowing such damages apply only to media defendants.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involves plaintiff Donna Hrivnak's claims against her former employer, First of Michigan, for wrongful termination allegedly due to her illegitimate pregnancy. Count I asserted violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, while Counts II and III raised state-law claims for breach of an implied just-cause employment agreement and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissal, the court addressed whether it had jurisdiction over the Title VII claim, given that the plaintiff had never filed any charge with the EEOC or pursued administrative remedies. Relying on the structure of Title VII's enforcement provisions, which require initial agency review, conciliation, and investigation before suit in federal court, as well as precedent emphasizing exhaustion of administrative remedies, the court held that failure to present the claim to the EEOC divested it of jurisdiction over the federal claim. The court therefore dismissed the case.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved trustees of two union benefit funds suing employer Reactor Controls, Inc. for underpaying contributions to retirement and health plans as required by collective bargaining agreements for work at a nuclear power plant, after the employer paid the principal shortfall but refused additional amounts for interest, liquidated damages, audit costs, and fees. The suit was brought under the LMRA and ERISA to enforce the agreements' higher overtime contribution rates. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment based on the defendant's admissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, finding liability under ERISA Section 515 for contributions per the agreements and awarding remedies under Section 502(g), while rejecting equitable defenses like estoppel and laches.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns the enforceability of an arbitration award under a collective bargaining agreement between Bechtel Construction Corp. and a carpenters' union. Bechtel terminated two employees, the Huffmans, for alleged marijuana possession and use at a nuclear power plant, the union grieved the terminations, and the arbitrator ruled largely in the union's favor by finding insufficient evidence against one employee and a lesser penalty for the other. Bechtel and plant owner Detroit Edison sought to vacate the award, while the union sought enforcement. The court enforced the award as to Howard Huffman but vacated it as to David Huffman, applying Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedents that limit arbitrators to interpreting the contract and require them to impose contractually specified penalties when an offense is found. The court also held that Detroit Edison, as plant owner, retained the right to exclude individuals regardless of the arbitration outcome.

labor & employment

The case involved claims by Mihalek Corp. and Lawrence Mihalek that the State of Michigan and its agents infringed their copyrights by using their work product in the "Say Yes to Michigan" promotional campaign. The court had previously granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on the copyright claims, finding no substantial similarity between the plaintiff's copyrighted materials and the state's works. On reconsideration, the court denied the motion, upholding its finding that there was no substantial similarity under the applicable tests for copyright infringement, and also denied the motion to extend time to serve additional defendants while granting a motion to strike an untimely response.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns a group of Michigan hospitals' challenge to the method used by the Department of Health and Human Services to calculate Medicare reimbursement for routine services. The dispute centers on Manual § 2345, which requires including labor/delivery room inpatient days in the total inpatient days used to compute average per diem costs for routine services, even though the associated costs are treated as ancillary services and excluded from the routine cost pool. The Provider Reimbursement Review Board ruled for the hospitals, but the Secretary reversed that decision through the Deputy Administrator; certain hospitals also raised jurisdictional issues regarding appeals after cost report reopenings. The court reviewed these administrative determinations, considered precedents from other circuits such as St. Mary, and addressed whether the policy leads to improper subsidization of Medicare costs by non-Medicare patients.

healthcarefederal power

The case involved consolidated appeals in the bankruptcy proceedings of U.S. Truck Company, Inc., challenging a bankruptcy court order that denied motions by the debtor and unsecured creditors' committee to allow the Brent Company to purchase certain undisputed unsecured claims at 40% of their allowed amounts. Following the appeals, the bankruptcy court approved the debtor's fourth proposed plan of reorganization, which provided for redemption of the unsecured claims at a higher value than Brent's offer. As a result, the district court held the appeals moot and dismissed them, while also vacating the underlying bankruptcy court opinion and declaring it to have no precedential value due to concerns about its reasoning.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a legal malpractice action in which plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against attorney Norm Perry for failing to timely file claims against a governmental entity and its employee following a 1978 motorcycle accident. Plaintiffs then sought to enforce the judgment through garnishment against Perry's malpractice insurers, including American Home Assurance Company, which denied coverage under its "claims made" policy due to Perry's delayed notice of the potential claim. American Home moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of coverage based on the policy's notice requirements. The court denied the motion, holding that Michigan Insurance Code § 500.3008 prevents invalidation of a claim for untimely notice if it was not reasonably possible to provide it within the policy period and notice was given as soon as reasonably possible, and that the insurer had not shown prejudice from the delay.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a contractor suing Union Carbide and other parties after his time-and-materials contract for excavation and concrete services at a Union Carbide facility expired without renewal, with claims of antitrust violations, conspiracy, fraud, breach of contract, and related counts under federal and Michigan law. The court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment and Rule 11 sanctions against Gandol, Inc. and James Gandol. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff provided no evidence of any conspiracy or improper external influence on the contract decision despite extended discovery periods, while Union Carbide established that its internal decision to retain only the union-affiliated contractor was made without input from others and was motivated by concerns over labor friction at the site. The court also noted the absence of support for the claims against the sanctioned parties.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned a secured creditor's claim against the general partner of a limited partnership after the partnership dissolved and distributed stock to a debtor whose limited partnership interest had been pledged as collateral. Plaintiff Motobecane notified defendant Patrick Oil of its security interest in Peter Burns' partnership stake, received an acknowledgment that the interest was noted on the records, and later learned that the interest had been exchanged for Patrick Petroleum stock without any protection for the security interest. Motobecane sued on theories of promissory estoppel and violation of the duty to inquire into adverse claims under Michigan's version of UCC § 440.8403, seeking the value of the stock. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, reasoning that the limited partnership interest did not qualify as a 'security' triggering the statutory duty and that the elements of estoppel were not satisfied.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves a dispute between Ford Motor Company and Transport Indemnity Co. (TICO), the surety for a bankrupt motor carrier, over approximately $655,000 in unprocessed freight damage claims that Ford had filed against the carrier under ICC regulations. After the parties failed to resolve the claims through negotiation or sampling, Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims should be treated as allowed due to the carrier's failure to timely process them. The court granted the motion, applying procedures analogous to those in the Bankruptcy Act under 11 U.S.C. § 502 to determine the claims' validity despite TICO's objections. The court also awarded Ford prejudgment interest at 12% compounded annually, reasoning that such an award was within its discretion to fully compensate Ford for the delay.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a U.S. resident minority shareholder suing Bermuda-based corporate officers and directors for an alleged freeze-out scheme involving threats to dilute his shares in a holding company without full disclosure. The court addressed motions to dismiss, treated as summary judgment, focusing on personal jurisdiction facts and federal securities claims under sections 10(b) and 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. It granted the motions in part, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing under section 10(b) because he was neither a purchaser nor seller of the new shares under the Birnbaum rule, even if the transaction remained uncompleted. The court denied the motions in part, allowing the section 17(a)(1) claim to proceed on the grounds that it may not require purchaser or seller status.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Zentek Corp. v. Internal Revenue Service, the plaintiff filed FOIA requests seeking its own tax-related documents from two IRS offices and sued when responses were delayed. The IRS eventually produced the documents, and the parties stipulated to dismissal of the action. The plaintiff then moved for attorney’s fees under the FOIA provision permitting recovery when a complainant substantially prevails. The court denied the motion as untimely under Local Rule 17(Z), which requires fee applications by a prevailing party to be filed within 30 days of judgment, noting that the FOIA statute sets no conflicting deadline.

proceduretaxes