Gordon Jay Quist

The case concerns a challenge by the American Beverage Association to a Michigan statute requiring certain beverage containers sold in the state to carry a unique mark allowing reverse vending machines to identify them as Michigan containers, aimed at preventing fraudulent redemption of out-of-state bottles under the state's Bottle Bill. The court held that the provision, M.C.L. § 445.572a(10), is not facially discriminatory against interstate commerce or extraterritorial in its reach. It rejected arguments that the law violates the dormant Commerce Clause on those grounds but found a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether any burden on interstate commerce is clearly excessive relative to the local benefits of reducing fraud and protecting state revenues, precluding summary judgment under the Pike balancing test.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved Evanston Insurance Company filing suit to vacate an appraisal award of actual cash value for fire damage to property owned by Cogswell Properties, LLC, and seeking a declaratory judgment that its liability under the policy was limited to Cogswell's purchase price for the property. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the court granted each in part and denied each in part, while dismissing as premature Cogswell's request for penalty interest. The court vacated the appraisal award and remanded the matter to the panel for a new determination. The core reasoning was that the panel had committed a manifest mistake by failing to apply the broad evidence rule to consider all relevant evidence of value, including the property's low purchase price, as previously directed by the court.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a bankruptcy trustee's attempt to avoid a transfer of the debtor's marital residence to his ex-wife's family trust, which occurred as part of a divorce settlement in exchange for cancellation of a $123,000 loan. The bankruptcy court dismissed the preference claim under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b), finding no diminution of the estate due to the property's tenancy-by-the-entireties status and rejecting the debtor's schedules as unreliable evidence. On appeal, the district court vacated that ruling and remanded, holding that the bankruptcy court clearly erred by wholly disregarding the schedules without specific proof of inaccuracies and that further analysis was needed on elements like insolvency and whether the creditor received more than in a hypothetical Chapter 7 liquidation. The court noted that transfers of entireties property can potentially be avoided as preferences and emphasized that the divorce context did not automatically preclude such analysis.

procedurepropertyfamily law

This case concerns Claude Zain McCollum's civil lawsuit against Detective Sergeant Rodney Bahl following McCollum's conviction for the 2005 sexual assault and murder of professor Carolyn Kronenberg at Lansing Community College. McCollum alleged that Bahl suppressed exculpatory video surveillance analysis showing McCollum was in another building at the time of the crime, fabricated aspects of his confession and other evidence, and caused his nearly two-year incarceration before exoneration based on the same video evidence. On Bahl's motion for summary judgment, the court granted dismissal of claims related to purple fiber evidence and state-law abuse of process but denied dismissal of § 1983 claims for fabricating the confession and improper detention as well as state-law claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gross negligence, finding genuine issues of material fact when viewing the record in McCollum's favor.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute in federal court between Lansing Community College (LCC) and National Union Fire Insurance, where the court first had to determine whether it had diversity jurisdiction. The key issue was whether LCC qualifies as an arm of the State of Michigan, which would prevent it from being treated as a citizen of the state for diversity purposes. Applying the four factors from Ernst v. Rising, the court concluded that LCC is not an arm of the state. The most important factor—the state's potential legal liability for a judgment against LCC—did not support arm-of-the-state status, as Michigan has no legal obligation to pay such judgments. The other factors, including how state law describes community colleges, the local election of their boards, and their primarily local function in providing post-secondary education, further confirmed that LCC is a citizen subject to diversity jurisdiction.

procedurefederal power

The case involves Ken Moore suing his former employer Hexacomb Corporation for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and Michigan's Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act by failing to accommodate his osteoarthritis and terminating his employment. Moore and Hexacomb filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied both motions, finding that Moore had exhausted his administrative remedies for the termination claim and that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Moore was a qualified individual with a disability who could perform the essential functions of his job with accommodation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Cheryl Phifer sued the City of Grand Rapids, its police department and officers, a homeless shelter, its board and director, and others under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, alleging that police stops, threats, a parking ticket, and service of a personal protection order while she protested outside the shelter in May and June 2005 violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment on the ground that the claims were time-barred. The court granted those motions and dismissed the case, holding that the events occurred more than three years before suit and that neither equitable tolling, fraudulent concealment, nor the continuing-violation doctrine applied because Phifer had immediate knowledge of the facts underlying her claims. The court denied the remaining motions as moot and later denied Phifer’s motion for reconsideration.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement dispute between two companies that sell wash fluid containment systems for cleaning large equipment. Hydro Engineering sued Petter Investments, alleging that Petter's water channel and side trough wash pads infringed claims in Hydro's U.S. Patent Nos. 6,799,591 and 7,258,749, which describe impervious ridged pads with side troughs for draining wastewater and debris. The court granted Hydro's motion for summary judgment on direct infringement of claim 15 of the '591 patent and contributory infringement of claims 2 and 3 of the '749 patent, finding no genuine issues of material fact that Petter's products matched the patented features and that Petter knew of the patents. It reserved ruling on claim 1 of the '591 patent and on induced infringement of the '749 patent pending oral argument, after determining that factual questions remained on whether the pads had an undulating surface and on Petter's specific intent.

business & regulatory

In this case, defendant APComPower moved to disqualify plaintiffs Factory Mutual Insurance and Energy Insurance Mutual's attorney and law firm, arguing a conflict arising from the firm's prior consultations with AP's insurer Allianz about the same underlying accident. The court found that Allianz had given informed consent to the representation after learning of the potential conflict and that this waiver bound AP due to the close insurer-insured relationship between Allianz and AP. Applying Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 and principles analogous to ABA Model Rule 1.18 on prospective clients, the court concluded that no disqualification was warranted and denied the motion.

procedure

This case is a False Claims Act qui tam action in which relator Robert J. Lamberts alleged that dermatologist Robert Stokes and his professional corporation submitted fraudulent Medicare invoices for services not performed. After a jury convicted Stokes on 31 counts of criminal health care fraud, the government intervened and sought partial summary judgment on its FCA and common-law claims, contending that the conviction estopped the defendants from denying liability. The court granted the motion in full, ruling that the criminal judgment precluded relitigation of the essential elements of the civil claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3731(d) and common-law issue preclusion, and it awarded the government treble damages of $2,481,624 plus $187,000 in statutory penalties.

criminal lawhealthcareprocedure

The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, a federally recognized tribe, sued Michigan state officials alleging that the state unlawfully applied sales and use taxes to the tribe and its members and improperly offset federal and state funds to collect on 1993-1994 tax assessments. The tribe also sought declaratory relief against future offsets and challenged the overall taxation scheme as violating federal law and an 1842 treaty. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, holding that the tribe lacked standing to pursue prospective relief because its tax liability had already been satisfied before the suit was filed, and that the treaty did not bar state taxation permitted under federal law.

taxesfederal power

This case involved a claim by Linda Patrick against Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company under ERISA for the denial of long-term disability benefits based on fibromyalgia after the initial 24-month period. The court granted judgment in favor of Patrick and reversed Hartford's denial of benefits. The decision rested on the finding that Hartford's determination was arbitrary and capricious because it selectively interpreted medical records from the treating physician, relied on inconsistent or inaccurate characterizations of the evidence, and failed to adequately account for the Social Security Administration's disability award.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involves the Secretary of Labor suing defendants, including company officers and a 401(k) plan, for ERISA violations such as failing to segregate employee contributions and using them for company expenses. Defendants moved to stay the civil action pending an impending criminal investigation into related ERISA and fraud charges. The court granted a limited 90-day stay after weighing factors including the near-complete overlap of issues in both proceedings, the pre-indictment status of the criminal case, Fifth Amendment concerns, the parties' interests, judicial efficiency, and the public interest in enforcing ERISA, while requiring updates on criminal developments and allowing for extensions.

criminal lawlabor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Walters, the defendant was charged with possessing with intent to distribute cocaine after officers seized approximately five hundred grams of the substance from his vehicle during a traffic stop on Interstate 94. Walters filed a motion to suppress the evidence, contending that the initial stop was unlawful and that he had not validly consented to the search of his trunk. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court found that Deputy Hopkins lacked credible evidence for the claimed violations—non-functioning license plate lights and improper weaving—based on photographs, stipulated testimony from a private investigator, and the vehicle's documented condition after the incident. The court therefore concluded that the stop was unsupported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion and granted the motion to suppress.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves consolidated patent infringement lawsuits between PolyVision Corporation and Smart Technologies, Inc. regarding several patents related to interactive whiteboard technology, including PolyVision's '309 patent and Smart's '263, '000, '681, and '636 patents. The court addressed multiple motions for summary judgment on issues of infringement, validity, and non-infringement. It granted Smart's motion for non-liability on the '309 patent, finding no infringement by Smart's products either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents based on the claim construction; upheld the validity of the '309 patent against enablement, best mode, and anticipation challenges; granted PolyVision's motion finding no infringement of certain claims in the '636 patent because those claims were limited to specific early Windows versions not used in PolyVision's products; and granted Smart's motion finding that PolyVision's products infringed the Martin patents except for three specific claims in the '636 patent.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This consolidated case involves cross-claims of patent infringement between PolyVision and Smart Technologies regarding electronic interactive whiteboard products. PolyVision alleges infringement of its '309 patent, while Smart alleges infringement of its Martin patents ('263, '000, '681, and '636), with each side also asserting invalidity and unenforceability defenses. The court addressed claim construction as a matter of law, the first step in infringement analysis, by examining the language of the disputed claims along with the specification, prosecution history, and other intrinsic evidence to determine the ordinary meaning to a person skilled in the art. For various terms such as those related to calibration, keystoning correction, and support structures, the court adopted constructions proposed by one party or the other, or held that no construction was needed beyond the plain language. The rulings rely on precedents like Phillips v. AWH Corp. and Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., emphasizing that claim terms must align with the patent's description without improperly importing limitations from the specification.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Jimdi, Inc. suing Twin Bay Docks and Products, Inc. and its president for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and related state-law claims, alleging unauthorized use of Jimdi's registered herringbone pattern on deck flooring panels produced with a manufacturing tool developed under a prior agreement between the parties. Jimdi sought a preliminary injunction to stop the alleged infringement and other conduct. The court denied the motion, concluding that Jimdi had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because the agreement and course of dealing permitted Twin Bay's use of the tool and design, that any harm was not irreparable, and that the balance of harms and public interest weighed against relief.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case concerned Van Dyk Mortgage Corporation's claims against homeowners and the United States arising from a 2004 mortgage refinance on Michigan property, where IRS tax liens were recorded after the new mortgage was executed but before it was recorded and the prior mortgage discharged. Van Dyk sought to quiet title through equitable subrogation to the position of the 2002 mortgage and also asserted unjust enrichment against the government. The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, holding that the United States had not waived sovereign immunity for such claims. It denied dismissal of the equitable subrogation claim, finding that under Michigan law Van Dyk could proceed because it lacked notice of the liens, was not a mere volunteer in paying off the prior mortgage, and the government would not be prejudiced since its liens were junior when filed.

taxespropertyfederal powerprocedure

The case involved debtor Lucre, Inc.'s appeal of a bankruptcy court order partially granting creditor SBC Michigan relief from the automatic stay to seek dissolution of state court injunctions blocking termination of services under their interconnection agreement, which arose from pre-petition disputes and an MPSC order. The district court dismissed the appeal as moot after Lucre filed an adversary proceeding and motion to assume the contract. The court reasoned that a subsequent bankruptcy court injunction preventing SBC from withholding services based on Lucre's pre-petition default resolved the core issue presented, leaving no live controversy for meaningful relief regardless of affirmance or reversal. It further held that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception did not apply because the bankruptcy court's decision on assumption would control future actions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute under the Lanham Act and Michigan law, in which Leelanau Wine Cellars sued Black & Red over the latter's use of the name 'Chateau de Leelanau' for its wines. After an initial ruling, appeal, remand, and bench trial that included consumer survey evidence on confusion, the district court found no likelihood of confusion between the marks. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's mark was descriptive and weak, the marks were not sufficiently similar, evidence of actual confusion was minimal, and the defendant's primary sales method through its own tasting rooms further reduced any risk of consumer confusion. Accordingly, the court entered judgment for the defendants on all claims.

business & regulatory