James Paul Churchill

In this FOIA case, Donald Lamb sought various records and information from the IRS regarding his tax dispute through multiple requests, while Barbra Lamb was dismissed as a plaintiff since she did not sign the requests. The court determined that Lamb had exhausted administrative remedies because the IRS responses lacked required appeal notices and some responses were untimely. On the merits, the court granted summary judgment to the IRS, finding that most requests did not seek agency records within FOIA's scope, granted requests were adequately responded to, and certain discriminant function scores were properly withheld under statutory exemptions; the IRS was not required to create or produce documents it did not maintain.

federal powertaxesprocedure

This case involved eighteen non-union public school and college employees in Michigan who challenged the service fees charged by their collective bargaining representatives, the Michigan Education Association and National Education Association, for the 1991-92 school year, claiming portions were used for purposes not chargeable under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and class certification in a § 1983 action, arguing that the union's fee calculations and procedures violated constitutional limits established in cases like Abood and Hudson. The court granted the unions' motion for summary judgment, holding that the Hudson-compliant arbitration procedures and award resolved the disputes without creating genuine issues of material fact for trial, that the arbitrator's determinations on chargeable expenses and accounting methods were entitled to deference, and that the plaintiffs' challenges to specific expenditures and procedures did not warrant further litigation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Bromley v. Michigan Education Association-NEA, non-union plaintiffs who had elected to arbitrate challenges to the union's reduced service fees for 1991-1992 filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of their constitutional rights. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the court should apply a short limitations period borrowed from Michigan's Uniform Arbitration Act (21 days) or the National Labor Relations Act (three or six months). The court denied the motion, holding that the applicable statute of limitations is Michigan's three-year period for personal injury actions. It reasoned that the nature of the claim must be determined from the complaint itself, which seeks relief for constitutional violations under § 1983, and that even if the case involves hybrid review of the arbitration award, the action remains one under § 1983 for which the longer state limitations period controls.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case concerned a dispute between Dow Chemical Company and its primary and excess insurers over rights to indemnity and defense costs for products liability claims stemming from defective polyethylene gas pipe resin produced by Dow Canada and used in Alberta's Rural Gas Program. The pipes developed leaks, leading to a province-mandated replacement program costing approximately $30 million (Canadian), and the specific issue before the court was determining the number of insurance policy 'occurrences' involved. The court examined facts showing that Dow's resin was not homogeneous, involved multiple compounders and extruders with varying quality controls, and was installed by different cooperatives under diverse conditions, resulting in leaks that developed at different times and in different forms rather than from a single cause.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns claims under the Miller Act by a union and trustees of employee benefit funds against a surety on a payment bond for a federal construction project at Wurtsmith Air Base. The subcontractor failed to remit withheld union dues and COPE contributions or to pay required fringe benefits to the funds for work performed from April to December 1990. The court granted partial summary judgment to the surety against the union with respect to six employees who stopped work more than 90 days before the January 3, 1991 notice, holding that the union's claim is treated like individual wage claims that require timely statutory notice. It denied summary judgment against the trustees, ruling their notice timely because it was provided within 90 days after the last labor for which the collective fringe-benefit claim was made.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Winkley v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., plaintiff Julie Winkley, an at-will employee, alleged that her termination after insisting on bringing an attorney to a meeting with supervisors about her work performance constituted retaliatory discharge in violation of Michigan public policy under Count IV of her complaint. The defendant moved to dismiss that count for failure to state a claim, while the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability. The court granted dismissal and denied summary judgment, assuming at-will status and finding that Michigan's judicially created public policy exception to at-will terminations requires support from statutes or clear policy, but the cited provisions on the right to counsel (such as MCL 600.1430 and others) do not establish such a policy for private-sector employees in internal employer meetings. The termination for insubordination was therefore not actionable under the exception.

labor & employment

This case involved a contract dispute between St. Luke’s Hospital and SMS over a computer system that failed to meet expectations, leading to claims under UCC breach of warranty, fraud, and consumer protection laws. The contract included damage limitations and an arbitration clause capping awards at license fees paid (around $300,000-$400,000). After arbitration, the arbitrator awarded St. Luke’s $850,000 in direct damages (net of counterclaims), denied punitive damages, interest, attorney fees, and costs. The court confirmed the award, finding the arbitrator did not exceed authority and committed no substantial legal error, as the decision resulted from factual inquiry; it denied St. Luke’s requests for additional fees and costs per the parties’ agreement and statutory rules on interest, while rejecting SMS’s challenges to the award’s scope.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a civil forfeiture action against a 1965 Pontiac GTO allegedly purchased with drug proceeds under 21 U.S.C. § 881. After the government filed a judicial forfeiture complaint, giving the court in rem jurisdiction, it proceeded with administrative forfeiture, which resulted in the vehicle's sale. The court held that the government must elect between judicial and administrative forfeiture proceedings when property is under $100,000 and cannot pursue both simultaneously, as this burdens claimants and conflicts with the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the administrative forfeiture was invalid, and the claimant was granted leave to amend her motion for return of the property or damages under the Tucker Act.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case concerned whether a property owner is entitled to a jury trial in a civil forfeiture proceeding brought by the government against real property allegedly used as a drug distribution center under 21 U.S.C. § 881. The court held that the owner has a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial because such in rem forfeiture actions regarding land-based property are actions at common law, not maritime actions, and historical English and American practices at the time of the Bill of Rights recognized jury trials in statutory forfeiture cases on land. The court further reasoned that the owner's jury demand was timely because it was filed simultaneously with his answer, which was the last pleading directed to the forfeiture issue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case involves Dow Chemical's insurance coverage disputes with Fireman's Fund and other carriers over liability claims stemming from property damage caused by Sarabond, a construction product used in numerous buildings. Dow sought summary judgment that each building constituted a separate "occurrence" under the policies, which would trigger separate deductibles and per-occurrence limits of $2.5 million. The court granted the motion, holding that each building is a distinct occurrence. The reasoning centered on the policy definitions of "occurrence" as an event resulting in property damage (including continuous exposure), combined with case law favoring an "effect" or liability-triggering approach over a single-cause analysis, and the undisputed fact that damage negotiations and impacts were building-specific despite any shared marketing decisions by Dow.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityproperty

This case involved debtors in a Chapter 12 bankruptcy who sought to exempt nearly all of a $415,000 personal injury settlement annuity from their creditors under federal exemption provisions in 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(11). The bankruptcy court allowed a $7,500 exemption for one debtor under the bodily injury provision but determined that only $24,000 of the remaining amount allocated to lost future earnings was reasonably necessary for the debtors' support after accounting for their farm income, rendering the rest non-exempt and leading to denial of plan confirmation for not being in the best interests of creditors. On appeal, the district court affirmed these findings as not clearly erroneous, rejecting the debtors' argument that the exemption analysis should align with disposable income calculations under the bankruptcy code and noting that the evidence came from the debtors themselves.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Danny Shivers, a bus driver employed by defendant Saginaw Transit System and covered by a collective bargaining agreement with his union, who was discharged after alcohol was detected in his system in violation of a rule in the company's personnel manual; Shivers had signed a related agreement after an initial incident and sued for breach of contract under Michigan's Toussaint doctrine based on the policy manual. The court dismissed Count I of the complaint with prejudice. It reasoned that employees protected by collective bargaining agreements cannot state a cognizable Toussaint policy manual claim because they already have access to grievance and arbitration processes, so the fairness considerations underlying the doctrine for at-will employees do not apply and no additional contractual obligation arises from distributing policy manuals. The ruling addressed only the threshold state-law question of whether such a claim could be stated, separate from any federal preemption issues under the LMRA.

labor & employment

This case is a declaratory judgment action by Dow Chemical against its primary and excess liability insurers regarding coverage for numerous property damage claims arising from Sarabond, a mortar additive that caused rust, expansion, and cracking in buildings where it was used. The court addressed the trigger of coverage issue among other indemnity questions under policies in effect from 1956 to 1976. It decided that coverage is triggered by injury in fact, meaning when actual damage occurs during the policy period, rather than at exposure, manifestation, or on a continuous basis. The core reasoning rested on a direct examination of the policy language defining when an occurrence causes property damage, reinforced by analogous case law interpreting similar provisions.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned a hospital's challenge to an arbitrator's decision reinstating a licensed practical nurse who had been discharged for negligence in failing to administer prescribed cardiac medications to a patient, along with prior incidents of insubordination and defective work. The court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment and vacated the arbitration award ordering reinstatement without back pay. The core reasoning was that Michigan has an established public policy favoring the delivery of safe and competent nursing care, and the arbitrator's factual findings of the nurse's misconduct and potential detriment to patient health meant that enforcing the award would violate that policy.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involves a dispute between Johns-Manville Corp. (JM) and Guardian Industries Corp. over the infringement of patents and misappropriation of trade secrets related to a fiberization process used in manufacturing fiberglass insulation. After liability was established and affirmed, the court conducted an accounting to determine damages, agreeing that a reasonable royalty rather than lost profits would compensate JM. The court reasoned that damages should be based on a hypothetical negotiation between a willing licensor and licensee at the time infringement began, considering factors such as energy efficiency advantages, production economies of scale, and the profits realized by Guardian from using the misappropriated technology. Ultimately, the court awarded damages including a running royalty and an upfront payment, allocating them between patent and state law claims.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Seifert v. Selby, Chapter 7 debtors listed a land contract vendee interest in real property on their schedules, claimed an exemption for their equity under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5), and amended the schedules after the creditors' meeting, but the trustee filed no timely objection under Bankruptcy Rule 4003(b). The trustee later moved to sell the property, prompting the debtors to argue that the lack of objection removed the property from the bankruptcy estate. The court held that, under 11 U.S.C. § 522(l) and consistent with In re Wiesner and In re Kretzer, the property became exempt and reverted fully to the debtors once the objection period expired, so the trustee lacked authority to sell it. The court rejected the contrary view in In re Reich that the debtors would hold only a lien for the exemption amount.

propertyprocedure

The case concerns a public employee, Herb Merrell, who was fired from his managerial role at Bay County Metropolitan Transportation Authority following a bus operations incident, without any pretermination hearing after an earlier discussion with his supervisor. Merrell sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting a procedural due process violation based on a property interest in his job created by assurances that formed a Toussaint contract under Michigan law, which imposed a just-cause limitation on discharge. The court held that a public-sector Toussaint contract can establish a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment, making the Loudermill pretermination process requirements applicable, while noting that qualified immunity for the individual defendant remained an issue due to the unsettled nature of the law at the time.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved defendants indicted for conspiring to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine but convicted by jury of the lesser included offense of conspiring to distribute 500 or more grams. The court decided that the maximum base offense level under the sentencing guidelines was 30, based solely on the offense of conviction rather than the greater quantity the court found by a preponderance of the evidence. The core reasoning was that Guideline 1B1.3(a) limits relevant conduct to acts in furtherance of the offense of conviction, and the statutory definition of the convicted offense covers only a range up to 5 kilograms, so greater amounts could not be included. This interpretation treats language in the application notes as limiting rather than expanding the guideline range.

criminal law

This case involves a defendant charged as a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), with an additional Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) that would impose a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence if he had three prior violent felonies or serious drug offenses. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing both that the ACCA charge was improperly included and that his prior convictions did not qualify as the required predicates. The court held that, under Sixth Circuit precedent, the ACCA functions as a sentencing enhancement rather than a separate offense, so its inclusion in the indictment was surplusage that could be stricken without dismissing the case. The court further ruled that it would determine the applicability of the ACCA enhancement based on the elements of the generic offenses rather than the specific facts of the prior crimes, and proceeded to analyze the defendant's convictions for that purpose.

criminal lawguns

In this case, the government sought pretrial detention of defendant MacNeal Johnson, who was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as a felon in possession of a firearm. The court addressed whether this offense qualifies as a 'crime of violence' under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(A), which would permit a detention hearing. Reaffirming its prior ruling in United States v. Jones, the court held that the charge meets the statutory definition of a 'crime of violence' found in 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4) and related provisions, as the offense by its nature involves a substantial risk of physical force. The decision compared the Bail Reform Act language to interpretations by the Sentencing Commission and legislative history, concluding that the broader statutory standard supports treating the felon-in-possession charge as a qualifying offense without examining the defendant's specific conduct at the threshold stage.

criminal lawgunsprocedure