Henry M. Butzel

The case involved three plaintiffs suing William Burton for false arrest and imprisonment, claiming he directed Detroit police to arrest them for poisoning a baby that later died of pneumonia. After a second trial following an earlier reversal, the jury awarded damages to each plaintiff, which the trial judge reduced via remittitur, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed those judgments. The court reasoned that the evidence supported Burton's active role in directing and participating in the arrests, the police report was properly admitted to show the officers' information, and other issues such as pleading amendments, the trial judge's questions, and the lack of a written opinion on the new trial motion did not amount to reversible error.

torts & liabilitycriminal lawprocedure

In Martin v. Favell, members of local unions of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers sued the court-appointed administrator and other officers, alleging illegal seizure of control, mismanagement and misappropriation of union funds, unlawful replacement of elected officials, and dissipation of assets, while seeking a restraining order, accounting, and receiver. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds that the plaintiffs had not exhausted available intra-union remedies under the IBEW constitution, which requires appeals to the International President, Executive Council, and Convention before court recourse and provides mechanisms for charging offenses like misappropriation. The Michigan Supreme Court held that exhaustion of these internal remedies is a prerequisite to judicial intervention, vacated the trial court's discovery order, and remanded the case, reasoning that the constitution's provisions offered potential avenues to address the alleged abuses and that plaintiffs were bound by its terms.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Vines v. Vines, the father was originally awarded custody of the couple's young daughter following their 1948 divorce, with the mother receiving visitation rights; nearly five years later, the mother petitioned to modify the decree and obtain custody after remarrying, establishing a stable home, and no longer needing to work. The trial court granted the modification, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. The court applied the statute providing that mothers are entitled to custody of children under 12 unless a court finds otherwise, emphasizing that the welfare of the child is paramount and that the mother was now physically, financially, mentally, and morally fit to care for the child, with no showing that her home would be unsuitable. It noted the father's demanding work schedule and the grandparents' advancing age while stressing reluctance to reverse the trial judge absent an abuse of discretion in determining the child's best interests.

family law

The case involved employees from two plants who sued their employer and the newly certified union (MESA) in state court after a company acquisition and plant consolidation led to layoffs and job changes that applied seniority rules favoring recently hired workers from the acquired plant. Plaintiffs alleged discrimination based on prior union affiliation and sought an injunction to reset seniority dates to the rehiring date for the new employees. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the state court lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. The core reasoning was that the claims concerned unfair labor practices under the federal LMRA, which preempts state court authority, and that plaintiffs had not exhausted internal union remedies as required before seeking judicial relief.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involved a fatal car accident on a rainy, slippery Michigan highway where the plaintiff's decedent, the local police chief, was a passenger in defendant Coeling's Lincoln while the pair combined a business trip for codefendant Empire Lumber Company with fishing plans. The plaintiff sued both the driver and his employer, alleging gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct by the driver to overcome the guest-passenger bar to recovery and seeking to hold the company liable under respondeat superior. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants at the close of the plaintiff's case, finding insufficient evidence of gross negligence as a matter of law. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence showed at most ordinary negligence—such as driving 45-55 mph on a wet road with some prior swerving—without the deliberate recklessness or persistence after warnings required to establish gross negligence under Michigan precedent. The court also declined to reach the employer's vicarious liability once it found no actionable misconduct by the driver.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved the Michigan Commissioner of State Police petitioning under the fire prevention act to order the razing of two old, unoccupied buildings owned by Walter E. Anderson on the grounds that their age, dilapidated condition, broken windows, and rubbish made them fire hazards. The trial court granted the order for complete demolition after finding the buildings posed risks. The Michigan Supreme Court modified the decree, ruling that razing was not justified because the statute requires the remedy to be no greater than necessary to eliminate the hazard, and the only realistic fire risk stemmed from vandals which could be addressed by boarding up openings and removing specific items like an oily tarpaulin. The court reasoned that age and dilapidation alone do not make a building a nuisance warranting destruction under the act, and less drastic measures sufficed to protect against preventable fires.

propertybusiness & regulatory