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

The case involved Hershel Radio Company suing Pennsylvania Railroad Company for damage to a shipment of radar transformers and other electrical equipment sent from California to Michigan under a bill of lading marked 'shipper’s load and count.' The goods were damaged because the plaintiff loaded and secured them improperly in the railcar, with no collision or other incident during transit. The trial court found no liability for the defendant railroad after hearing the evidence, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of no cause of action. The court relied on federal legislation (49 USCA § 101) providing that a carrier is not liable for damage caused by improper loading when the shipper loaded the goods and the 'shipper’s load and count' notation is accurate, and it found insufficient evidence that any railroad employee with authority had inspected or approved the loading.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a lawsuit by a 13-year-old plaintiff injured in a car-train collision at a railroad crossing in Battle Creek, Michigan, where the car driven by an unlicensed 15- or 16-year-old struck an eastbound freight train; the plaintiff claimed the railroad failed to operate the required statutory warning signals (flashing lights and bells) at the crossing. The jury awarded the plaintiff $25,000 in damages for injuries including the loss of her left eye, and the trial court denied the railroad's motions for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that positive testimony from witnesses that the signals were not operating created a factual question for the jury on the railroad's negligence, that contributory negligence was properly a jury issue, and that the damages award was not excessive under the circumstances.

torts & liability

In Arnold v. Goldstein, plaintiff Charles Arnold was injured when struck first by a truck owned by defendant Samuel Goldstein and driven by defendant Harold Frost, then by a car driven by defendant Albert Berry, while crossing Saginaw Street in Flint, Michigan, in the middle of the block. Arnold sued all three defendants for negligence and obtained a jury verdict against them; Goldstein and Frost appealed, claiming the trial court should have directed a verdict on grounds of contributory negligence as a matter of law and should have considered the city traffic code. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, ruling that contributory negligence was a factual question for the jury because Arnold had been standing in the street facing an emergency and was not negligent per se, and that the traffic code could not be applied because it had never been introduced into evidence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Fred Loving left his 1953 Ford at defendant Howard Lare, Inc.'s garage for repairs; the car was stolen overnight after a thief broke in, reached through a broken pane to unbar the door, and drove it away using keys left in the ignition. The circuit court reversed a lower court judgment and awarded plaintiff damages, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. Under a statute making proof of damage to a bailed vehicle prima facie evidence of negligence and under common-law bailment rules, the failure to return the car shifted the burden to the defendant to show lack of negligence; the court found the defendant failed to meet this burden because it left the keys in the ignition and allowed the premises to remain unguarded from 4:30 a.m. until 6:15 a.m. The court further held that the thief's intervening act did not necessarily break the chain of causation and that the undisputed facts presented a question of liability properly decided as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityproperty

In People v. Medcoff, defendants LaVone Medcoff and Mack Myers were convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting the operation of a gambling house in Flint, Michigan, in violation of state statutes. During the trial, after receiving information about possible juror misconduct, the judge conducted a private inquiry with the jury regarding discussions about the case, excluding the defendants, their counsel, and the prosecutor. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial, holding that the defendants' constitutional right to be present during this critical stage of the proceedings was violated. The court reasoned that such an abrogation of the right to presence is not subject to harmless-error analysis and that prejudice is conclusively presumed, regardless of whether actual misconduct occurred or affected the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a bankruptcy trustee suing a debtor and his wife to establish and foreclose a lien on their entireties property after the debtor used borrowed funds, while insolvent, to convert a barn on the property into a business space. The trial court granted a $5,000 lien subject to the homestead exemption and existing mortgage, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that under the fraudulent conveyance statute, every conveyance by an insolvent person without fair consideration is fraudulent as to creditors regardless of actual intent. It relied on precedents barring enhancement of entireties estates at creditors' expense and rejected arguments distinguishing borrowed funds from the debtor's own assets, noting that the funds were put beyond creditors' reach.

property

The case involved the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage on a class C liquor license, fixtures, goodwill, and related assets of a Detroit bar operated by the Minchellas, with the mortgage later assigned to plaintiff Longo. After a receiver was appointed, the parties including intervenors Anthony and Theresa Latorella stipulated to a consent foreclosure decree that transferred the property rights. Intervenors later filed a cross-bill claiming a subsequent lease on the premises and seeking possession and rent payments from the receiver, along with motions to set aside the decree. The court held that the consent decree was final and res judicata, barring the cross-bill and related challenges absent any showing of fraud or mistake, and affirmed the dismissal of those claims while noting an inconsistent rent order that was not properly appealed.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved owners and occupiers of substandard property in Pontiac Township who challenged a local housing ordinance requiring running water and indoor toilets in dwellings while banning the use of house trailers outside licensed parks after a short grace period, with fines or jail time for violations. Plaintiffs sought either to force a vote on the ordinance or a declaratory judgment that it was invalid as to them, given their limited means and pre-existing living arrangements in rural areas without municipal utilities. The court affirmed the declaratory judgment holding the ordinance illegal and unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs. The core reasoning was that the township's enabling act did not authorize retroactive application to dwellings occupied before the ordinance's passage, nor did it permit declaring violations nuisances per se.

propertycriminal law

In People v. Davis, Thomas Arlan Davis was convicted of second-degree murder after he struck and killed his wife with a car following an argument, with the prosecution alleging deliberate action and the defense claiming an accident due to his physical limitations and steering issues. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting claims that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction because no oral testimony was taken before issuing the warrant, that insufficient evidence supported binding the defendant over on a murder charge, and that the trial court erred by excluding results from a polygraph test offered to support the defendant's credibility. The court held that a sworn complaint provided adequate basis for the warrant, that probable cause existed based on circumstantial evidence and prior conduct, and that polygraph evidence remains inadmissible because the technique lacks general scientific acceptance and standardization among experts. Other asserted errors were deemed meritless.

criminal lawprocedure

In Muskegon Hardware & Supply Co. v. Green, an insurance carrier sought reimbursement from a third-party defendant for workers' compensation payments made to the widow of an employee killed in an automobile accident allegedly caused by the defendant's negligence. The original suit was filed by the employer and insurer just before the three-year statute of limitations expired, but without naming the widow or personal representative as parties; after the limitations period, the court allowed an amendment adding those parties. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that the amendment related back to the original filing date. The core reasoning was that adding the employee’s dependents or representative did not create a new cause of action, as the incident, theory of liability, measure of damages, and distribution of recovery remained unchanged under the 1952 amendment to the workers’ compensation act.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Avery C. Macklem suing defendant Warren Construction Company for specific performance of an alleged verbal agreement to extend the one-year statutory redemption period following a mortgage foreclosure by advertisement on his Detroit property. The foreclosure sale occurred after years of default on a small mortgage and unpaid taxes, with the property's value stipulated at $15,000. Plaintiff claimed the defendant's president agreed over the phone to a 30-day extension, allowing time to redeem for about $3,005, but the president denied any such call or agreement. The trial court ruled for the defendant, finding plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof on the existence of the extension. On appeal, the court affirmed after de novo review, holding that while verbal extensions are enforceable outside the statute of frauds, they require proof by a preponderance of evidence, and credibility determinations by the trial judge who heard the witnesses could not be overturned here.

propertyprocedure

In Kramer v. Charlevoix Beach Hotel, plaintiff E.L. Kramer, who co-owned a hotel with his wife as a partnership, sought workers' compensation benefits after suffering a serious fall injury while working at the hotel in 1951. The insurance carrier, Travelers, contested the claim, arguing that Kramer was not an "employee" under the statute because he received no wages separate from profits. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the compensation commission's award, holding that the 1949 amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act extended coverage to working partners when premiums were paid based on earnings or profits, even without actual wages, and that the policy and rate manual treated partners as covered employees with a fixed $3,600 annual payroll for premium purposes.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a dispute between the register of deeds and deputy register of deeds for Kent County and the county pension board over whether the board could require the deputy, who was over age 65 and not a plan member, to retire under the county's pension and retirement plan. The circuit court, sitting en banc, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs that the deputy could not be retired. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the deputy register of deeds qualifies as a public official under the criteria established in People v. Freedland because the position was created by statute, involves a delegation of sovereign power to perform duties defined by law with some independence, requires an oath, and has elements of permanency, distinguishing it from an ordinary employee subject to mandatory retirement. The court rejected arguments based on other statutes allowing additional deputies, noting that the deputy here was appointed under a mandatory statute and meets the indicia of office.

labor & employment

Virginia Ann Scott, an 18-year-old charged with larceny, was called as a witness at her alleged accomplice's trial and gave testimony that conflicted with statements from police officers and a matron. The trial judge summarily convicted her of criminal contempt for what he described as willfully false and evasive testimony and sentenced her to 15 days in jail without a hearing, notice of charges, or opportunity to obtain counsel. Scott petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that when a contempt finding depends primarily on evidence from other witnesses rather than the judge's direct personal knowledge, summary punishment is not authorized and due process requires notice and a full hearing under Michigan statute and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

criminal lawprocedure