Plaintiffs applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for a certificate to start a national bank under 12 U.S.C. § 27, but the application was denied. They sued alleging the denial was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, prompting the defendant to move to dismiss. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that it had jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act to review whether the Comptroller complied with statutory requirements. It also granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel production of the administrative file, ordering in camera inspection of certain confidential documents on character and finances while directing direct production of commercial reports and protective handling for information on existing banks.
This case involves a habeas corpus petition by Carl Caver challenging his state narcotics conviction and resulting imprisonment. Caver was arrested on suspicion of assault and attempted rape based on a description match, and during a search incident to arrest, officers found and opened sealed envelopes containing heroin, which was used to convict him despite his objection. The court granted the petition, holding that the search violated the Fourth Amendment because the envelopes had no connection to the arrest charges, the officer lacked probable cause to believe they contained narcotics before opening them, and the items were already secured in police possession so a warrant was required. The ruling relied on Supreme Court precedents limiting the scope of warrantless searches incident to arrest, such as Terry v. Ohio, and found the relevant provision of the Michigan Constitution unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause due to its conflict with Mapp v. Ohio. The court ordered Caver's release unless the state grants a new trial excluding the heroin evidence.
The case challenged provisions of Michigan's election law requiring new political parties seeking ballot access to collect at least 100 signatures from each of 10 counties, with no more than 35% of the total minimum signatures from any one county. The court held these requirements unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reasoned that the geographic distribution rules imposed an arbitrary and discriminatory formula that granted greater voting strength to residents of sparsely populated counties than to those in populous ones, directly conflicting with the one-person, one-vote principle established in Moore v. Ogilvie. The decision emphasized that the protected rights belonged to voters rather than parties and found the Michigan statute indistinguishable from the invalidated Illinois law. As a result, the court granted a permanent injunction without convening a three-judge panel.
This case involved a dispute between Space Conditioning, as successor to Warren Webster & Company, and its insurer, Insurance Company of North America, over coverage under a blanket liability policy. Warren Webster had been sued by a customer, High Life Inn, for damages from a defective heating and air conditioning system that caused property damage, business losses, and other harms, with claims based on negligence, breach of warranty, and misrepresentations. The insurer refused to defend or indemnify Webster in the underlying suit, citing policy exclusions for damage to the insured's own products or completed work. The court held that the insurer was obligated to pay the full amount of the judgment against Webster, plus attorney's fees and interest, because its wrongful refusal to defend prevented it from later arguing that the general verdict made it impossible to allocate covered damages. The reasoning emphasized that an insurer cannot benefit from its breach of the duty to defend by asserting uncertainties created by its own nonparticipation in the original litigation.
The case involved a plaintiff who was arrested after complying with a bus driver's instruction to place his revolver in luggage while traveling through Michigan, leading to charges for possessing an unregistered gun; he was later acquitted after a delayed trial and sued Greyhound, prosecutors, sheriffs, and the county for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3)) plus state-law claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution. The court granted the motion to dismiss the claims against the prosecuting attorneys and the deceased sheriff. The core reasoning was that prosecutors enjoy quasi-judicial immunity for acts within their authority, such as recommending warrants and pursuing prosecution, and any alleged pressure to plead guilty caused no constitutional injury since the plaintiff maintained his innocence and received a fair trial; the sheriff was protected for simply executing the warrant, as in Pierson v. Ray.
The case involved a motion to dismiss by defendant Johnson and Towers, Inc. in an antitrust suit under the Clayton Act, questioning whether the Eastern District of Michigan was a proper venue. The court decided to deny the motion, holding that Johnson and Towers was subject to suit there because it transacted business in the district. The reasoning centered on the company's substantial and continuous purchases from Michigan-based suppliers like Chrysler Corporation, along with related visits, communications, and shipments, which met the broad "transacts business" standard under 15 U.S.C. § 22, even though the activities involved buying rather than selling.
