The plaintiff corporation sued the City of Grand Rapids, alleging that the city's tax assessments and levies on its personal property for 1955-1958 were illegal, violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Michigan constitutional provisions, and amounted to fraud; it sought an injunction against collection, a court-ordered reassessment, and damages up to $10,000. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1341 because adequate state-court remedies existed. The court granted the motion, holding that Michigan law provided a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy through payment under protest followed by a state-court refund action or, where appropriate, equitable relief, thereby barring federal equitable relief under § 1341. It further held that the damages claim failed to meet the $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The case involved a truck driver employed by a motor carrier who was discharged for submitting a fictitious railroad fare receipt for reimbursement after a delivery trip. Under the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the union, the employee pursued a grievance that proceeded through local panels, a joint conference committee, and ultimately arbitration, where a three-member board upheld the discharge for dishonesty. The plaintiff sued for wrongful discharge and damages, claiming the arbitration award was a nullity due to procedural defects, insufficient evidence, and other errors, without seeking to set aside the award. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the arbitration decision was final and binding under the agreement and that there were no genuine issues of material fact.
This case involves a plaintiff seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the denial of his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, based on asthma and a back condition that ended his employment as a projectionist, factory worker, and security guard. The administrative referee and Appeals Council had denied the claim, finding insufficient evidence of inability to engage in substantial gainful activity. The court examined the record, including medical evidence and the plaintiff's education, training, and work history, and concluded that the referee's decision rested on a misunderstanding of the applicable legal standard for disability and was not supported by substantial evidence. It therefore reversed the denial and remanded the matter to the Secretary with directions to award the benefits, determining that the impairment had rendered the plaintiff unable to work as of September 1955.
This case involved a plaintiff who sued for $25,000 in damages from an automobile accident but received a jury verdict of only $8,000. The defendants objected to the plaintiff's taxation of court costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(b), arguing that the recovery fell below the $10,000 jurisdictional threshold, and also challenged specific costs for a deposition, map, and photographs. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to tax costs because he had claimed the higher amount in good faith based on a reasonable expectation of recovery exceeding $10,000, with no evidence of bad faith to invoke the statute's discretionary denial. It further ruled that the deposition, map, and photographs were properly taxable as they were necessarily obtained for use at trial. The court denied the defendants' motion to impose costs on the plaintiff.
The case involves a Michigan resident suing a New Jersey corporation for personal injuries sustained while using a leased wire-tying machine and wire, alleging negligence in manufacture and inspection as well as breach of warranty. After the action was removed to federal court on diversity grounds and the defendant's motions to quash service, strike the declaration, and dismiss were denied, the defendant moved to amend the order to certify a controlling question of jurisdiction for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court denied the motion, holding that while the jurisdictional issue met the statutory criteria for a controlling question with potential to advance termination, the provision applies only to exceptional cases of protracted and expensive litigation, not ordinary personal-injury suits that can be tried in a few days.
This case involves motions related to subpoenas issued by Arthur Nobile and Schering Corporation to employees of The Upjohn Company in connection with patent interference proceedings before the United States Patent Office. The subpoenas required testimony and production of documents at a deposition in Michigan. The court granted the motion by Upjohn's employees to quash the subpoenas after consolidating proceedings and considering various stay requests, while denying Nobile's motions to enforce them. The core reasoning was that Nobile failed to show good cause or special circumstances for requiring production of confidential and privileged corporate documents, and that Upjohn had no obligation to assist in establishing claims in the Patent Office proceedings.
