The case was an admiralty action by a steel importer against a vessel for rust damage to structural steel shapes shipped from Antwerp to Detroit in 1949 under a bill of lading. The court applied the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and prior related rulings to hold that light surface rust constituted an inherent vice for which the carrier was exempt from liability, while excessive rust on about 25% (66 tons) of the cargo was compensable. It awarded damages equal to the pickling costs for the excessively rusted portion and denied the shipper's motion to increase the award, finding the evidence supported liability only for that amount.
This case involved a motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit for lack of diversity jurisdiction, where the plaintiff alleged she was a citizen of Illinois and the defendant a citizen of Michigan. The undisputed facts showed the plaintiff had been domiciled in Michigan before marrying an Illinois serviceman, returned temporarily to Michigan after the wedding while her husband was sent overseas, and voted there under her maiden name shortly before filing suit. The court denied the motion, concluding that diversity of citizenship existed because the plaintiff's domicile at filing was that of her husband in Illinois. The core reasoning was that a married woman's domicile follows her husband's absent hostile separation, her temporary Michigan activities did not indicate intent to establish a separate domicile, and voting rights did not override this for federal jurisdiction purposes.
This case involves a lawsuit by Square D Co. against an international union, its local affiliate, and individual officers under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, alleging that the defendants induced employees to engage in strikes, walkouts, and work stoppages in violation of a collective bargaining agreement's no-strike provisions, resulting in $210,000 in damages. The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action, arguing failure to state a claim, improper parties, lack of jurisdiction over conspiracy allegations, and that the dispute must first proceed through the contract's grievance and arbitration procedures. The court addressed the arbitration issue and concluded that the agreement's procedures, which outline steps for employee grievances and prohibit work stoppages until exhaustion, do not apply to employer claims for damages arising from union-induced breaches. It reasoned that the process is geared exclusively toward employee complaints, is silent on employer grievances, and the exclusive-remedy clause in the contract does not require arbitration for the type of violations alleged here.
This case involved a claim of copyright infringement under federal law regarding an original dot-counting contest advertisement created in 1934 and subsequently licensed for use in sales promotions. The plaintiff continued the licensing business after inheriting rights from his father, but defendant Weir, after initially obtaining a valid license and later materials as an agent, instead used and promoted similar advertisements for his own profit and on behalf of other defendants without authorization. The court found infringement based on substantial similarity to the copyrighted material, willful conduct in some instances, and lack of valid defenses or proof of independent creation. It awarded the plaintiff damages ranging from actual commissions lost to statutory amounts, attorney fees, a permanent injunction against further use, and dismissed the defendants' cross-claims for unfair competition. The decision rested on evidence of the advertisement's originality, valid copyright registration, and the defendants' unauthorized exploitation.
This case was a trademark infringement and unfair competition suit in which Consolidated Cosmetics challenged Neilson Chemical Co.'s application to register the mark Rustaboo for a chemical detergent used to clean and prepare metal surfaces for painting, claiming it was confusingly similar to their Tabu and Taboo marks for cosmetics, toilet soap, and perfumes. The court upheld the Patent Office's dismissal of the opposition and rejected the infringement claims. It found after reviewing the evidence that the marks were not similar, the parties' goods were dissimilar in composition, function, and trade channels with no likelihood of consumer confusion, and there was no basis for unfair competition or application of the dilution doctrine.
The case involved a plaintiff from Illinois who sued the State of Michigan, the City of Detroit, and various officials for damages after serving 17 years in prison following an armed robbery conviction that was later overturned on retrial, claiming false imprisonment, due process and equal protection violations under the Fourteenth Amendment, involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment, and related wrongs. The court granted motions to dismiss the claims against the State based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and failure to comply with Michigan's Court of Claims procedures, against the City of Detroit on grounds of governmental immunity and because municipalities are not "persons" subject to liability under the Civil Rights Act, and against former prosecutor Harry S. Toy because the two-year statute of limitations for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution had expired. The court extended the dismissals to all other defendants on the same limitations grounds.
