Denise Page Hood

This case involved a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee's appeal from a bankruptcy court order allowing debtors to claim a vacant adjacent parcel as part of their homestead exemption. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling and dismissed the appeal. The court found that Michigan law defines a homestead to include up to 40 acres of land with a dwelling and appurtenances, and that the principal residence exemption under the General Property Tax Act extends to unoccupied contiguous property classified as residential. The bankruptcy court's factual findings established that the two parcels had no separating boundaries, were both zoned agricultural residential, received homestead tax treatment, and were used by the debtors in a manner consistent with residential purposes rather than commercial activity.

propertyproceduretaxes

The case involves an antitrust lawsuit by the United States and Michigan against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, alleging that the insurer's use of most-favored-nation (MFN) clauses in contracts with hospitals violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Michigan's antitrust law by restraining competition in health insurance and hospital services markets. Blue Cross moved to dismiss, claiming immunity under state regulation and other defenses. The court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that Michigan statutes did not sufficiently regulate the MFN practices to displace federal antitrust enforcement and that the complaint adequately stated a claim for unreasonable restraints on trade. The court also addressed related procedural motions, including granting production of certain documents and denying a stay of discovery.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case concerned Lamar Advertising's challenge to the City of Utica's zoning ordinance regulating nonaccessory signs (billboards), which limited size, location, and spacing but was amended in 2008 to allow waivers of those limits only for signs on city-owned property. Lamar had its applications for larger billboards on private C-2 zoned land denied while a competitor received approval for a similar sign on city property, leading to claims that the ordinance imposed unconstitutional restrictions on commercial and noncommercial speech and constituted an invalid prior restraint. The court denied the city's motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiff's motion in part, and declared Section 1507 unconstitutional on the ground that it was not narrowly tailored to the city's asserted interests in public health and safety, while finding a triable issue of fact on whether the ordinance contained sufficiently objective criteria to avoid constituting a prior restraint. The ruling was based on the ordinance's text, amendment history, and application to the parties' proposals.

free speechbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was brought by Michigan prisoner Frederick Thomas Freeman, who was convicted of first-degree murder in the 1986 shooting death of Scott Macklem and sentenced to life imprisonment. Freeman raised multiple claims, including ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, trial court errors regarding evidence and jury instructions, and actual innocence. The district court conditionally granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus, ordering Freeman's release unless the state retries him within a specified period. The court's reasoning focused on constitutional violations during the trial, particularly counsel's performance deficiencies and the impact of perjured witness testimony that undermined the reliability of the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan could include provisions in standardized Chapter 13 confirmation orders requiring the Internal Revenue Service to redirect debtors' tax refunds to Chapter 13 trustees rather than to the debtors themselves. The district court granted the IRS's petition for a writ of mandamus, declaring that trustees could not enforce such provisions and prohibiting the bankruptcy court from issuing orders containing them. The court reasoned that these injunctive provisions violated the IRS's sovereign immunity and that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction and authority under relevant statutes to compel the IRS in this manner.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

The case involves Michigan prisoner Ronald Simpson's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1986 convictions for assault with intent to murder a police officer and felony firearm possession following a jury trial that used dual juries and involved evidence of an alleged armed robbery. Petitioner raised claims including denial of his state motion for relief from judgment, use of dual juries, non-disclosure of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, sentencing errors, and prosecutorial misconduct. The court conditionally granted the petition, ordering that the state provide a new trial within 90 days or release the petitioner. The core reasoning was that cumulative trial errors created grave doubt as to whether they had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict, warranting relief under the Brecht standard.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involves a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action filed by Jeffrey Sanders against the Detroit Police Department and related defendants, alleging a warrantless arrest without probable cause, unreasonable seizure, and failure to provide a timely judicial probable cause hearing within 48 hours as required by County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, resulting in detention from April 15 to April 27, 2006. The underlying events stemmed from a domestic assault response leading to charges for assault with a dangerous weapon and domestic violence, along with disputes over arraignment timing and municipal liability. The court reviewed all submitted exhibits from the complaint and filings, then denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. It dismissed the complaint in full, concluding that claims against the city lacked evidence of an unconstitutional policy or custom, that individual claims were insufficient or barred, and that the allegations failed to state arguable claims for relief.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan's dismissal of an adversary proceeding brought by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and Liquidating Agent of Apex Global Information Services, Inc. (AGIS) against Qwest Communications Corp. The dispute centered on whether Qwest breached the Most Favored Customer clause in a 1998 Capacity IRU Purchase Agreement for fiber optic network capacity, with AGIS seeking damages of approximately $84 million. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment dismissing the claim, concluding that the lower court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that it properly applied the law in interpreting the contractual provision under Delaware law. The cross-appeal by Qwest regarding discovery issues was also rejected as part of the affirmance.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned claims by Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen of America against Dorling Kindersley Publishing for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, dilution, and common law trademark infringement arising from the publication of a children's book "Fun Cars" that incorporated images and designs of the New Beetle. The defendant moved for summary judgment asserting defenses including nominative fair use and laches, while plaintiffs also sought summary judgment. The court reviewed the facts regarding prior permissions for similar books, the nature of the book as a toy-like item, and the legal standards for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, focusing on whether there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the use of the marks and potential consumer confusion or dilution.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from debt collectors Asset Acceptance and its law firm Mary Jane Elliott attempting to collect an old credit card debt from plaintiff Earl Charbonneau, leading to claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for issues including statute of limitations, debt verification, and phone contacts. The district court granted Asset Acceptance's motion for summary judgment in full, dismissing all claims against it, and granted Mary Jane Elliott's motion in part while denying it as to remaining allegations of improper telephone practices under sections 1692b(2), 1692b(3), 1692c(a)(1), 1692d(5), and 1692d(6). The rulings rested on review of the record from related state court debt collection proceedings, application of doctrines like collateral estoppel (found inapplicable to the federal FDCPA claims), and findings that some claims lacked genuine issues of material fact while others did not. A status conference was set for the surviving claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Michigan laws requiring out-of-state wine retailers to maintain a physical location in the state and participate in the state's three-tier alcohol distribution system in order to ship directly to consumers, while in-state retailers faced no such requirement. Plaintiffs, including a Florida retailer and Michigan consumers, challenged the restrictions as discriminatory against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Granholm v. Heald that similar winery restrictions were unconstitutional. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, denied the defendants' motions, and declared the relevant statutes unconstitutional, enjoining their enforcement against out-of-state retailers. The core reasoning was that the laws facially discriminated against out-of-state actors by requiring in-state presence, and the state failed to demonstrate that nondiscriminatory alternatives could not achieve its regulatory goals under the Twenty-First Amendment. The court allowed Michigan to continue collecting taxes and requiring licenses on direct sales as long as they did not discriminate.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In United States v. Delaney, defendant Dennis Delaney was arrested on federal charges of sexual exploitation of children and child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 and 2252A and moved to suppress statements made to agents, claiming violations of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights because he was not given Miranda warnings and was denied access to counsel despite repeated requests. After an evidentiary hearing with testimony from Secret Service agents and the defendant, the district court denied the motion to suppress. The court credited the agents' accounts that Miranda warnings were administered during transport, that Delaney understood his rights and spoke voluntarily, and that he never made an unambiguous request for counsel. The Sixth Amendment claim was rejected as the right is offense-specific and does not attach until prosecution commences. The court concluded the statements were obtained through lawful methods without coercion.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Goedert v. City of Ferndale, plaintiffs challenged the City of Ferndale's enforcement of a Michigan honk statute (incorporated into local ordinances) and a disturbing-the-peace ordinance to prohibit signs urging motorists to honk in support of peace vigils and to ticket both demonstrators and motorists for such honking, alleging a violation of First Amendment free speech rights. The district court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, denied the city's cross-motion, declared the ordinance's application unconstitutional as applied to the vigils and supportive honking, and awarded nominal damages of $1. The court reasoned that the restriction was a content-based regulation of protected expressive conduct that failed strict scrutiny because it was not narrowly tailored to address legitimate interests in traffic safety or noise, as evidenced by the lack of actual problems from the vigils and the city's allowance of honking at other events like sports celebrations and weddings.

free speechcivil rights

In Hall v. Vasbinder, petitioner Christopher Hall sought a writ of habeas corpus after his state conviction for second-degree criminal sexual conduct and related charges arising from alleged acts during a 1998 family camping trip. The district court reviewed a magistrate judge's report recommending that the petition be granted, focusing on claims that the prosecutor violated Hall's Fifth Amendment rights by eliciting testimony and making arguments about his decision not to testify at an earlier probate hearing concerning child protective services. The court analyzed whether these comments on Hall's silence were improper under Griffin v. California and whether any error was harmless, considering the state appellate court's prior rejection of the claims. It concluded that the prosecutor's references infringed on the privilege against self-incrimination and that the state court's harmless-error determination was unreasonable under applicable standards.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved several Arab-American and Muslim community organizations suing the Attorney General and FBI Director to challenge the constitutionality of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which permits the FBI to obtain business records for foreign intelligence investigations. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, including lack of probable cause for searches, absence of notice, due process deprivations, permanent gag orders on disclosure, and investigations targeting protected expression, association, and religious exercise. Following congressional amendments to the statute in 2005 and 2006, the district court denied the government's motion to dismiss on standing grounds as to the First Amendment claims, holding that the plaintiffs had standing to sue. The court granted the plaintiffs thirty days to determine whether to file an amended complaint reflecting the updated law and denied the remaining arguments in the motion without prejudice pending that decision.

free speechreligious libertycivil rightsfederal power

In this bankruptcy case, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and the Liquidating Agent of A.P. Liquidating Co. sued Qwest Communications Corporation for breach of contract, fraud, and intentional interference with economic relations after Qwest withdrew its proof of claim in the debtor's Chapter 11 proceeding. The district court granted the plaintiffs leave to appeal the bankruptcy court's order striking their jury demand and affirmed that order. The court held that judicial estoppel barred the plaintiffs from arguing that the claims were not part of the claims resolution process, as they had successfully taken the opposite position in prior proceedings, and therefore the plaintiffs had no right to a jury trial under Granfinanciera and Langenkamp. The matter was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves Plaintiff Decker Inc. alleging that Defendants G & N Equipment Co. and Daniel Ziehm infringed its copyrights in equipment catalog drawings and text, while also asserting unfair competition claims under the Lanham Act and Michigan common law. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Lanham Act and state-law unfair competition counts but allowing the copyright claim to proceed. It found that the copyright registrations created a presumption of validity that the defendants failed to rebut, that the plaintiff was asserting protection over original expressions rather than ideas or the catalog as a whole, and that the state common-law claim was preempted by federal copyright law because it sought equivalent rights to reproduction and display without any extra element. The court also granted the plaintiff's request for additional time to respond.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved claims by Royal Insurance Company and Ford Motor Company against Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. and third-party vessel interests for losses from thousands of Ford transmissions that were lost or damaged at sea during a shipment from France to Canada due to inclement weather. Plaintiffs sought to avoid a $500-per-package liability limit under the U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), arguing that the Hague-Visby Rules should govern instead and provide higher limits. The court denied plaintiffs' motion to strike the limitation defense and granted defendants' motions for partial summary judgment on the package limitation issue, holding that COGSA applied to the slot-chartered international carriage, that the transport racks counted as COGSA packages, and that the $500 limit therefore controlled. A separate claim concerning proof of physical damage to undamaged-appearing transmissions was dismissed without prejudice as outside the scope of the agreed briefing schedule.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case was a constitutional challenge by Michigan abortion clinics, providers, and physicians against the state's Legal Birth Definition Act (M.C.L. §§ 333.1081 et seq.), which defined a 'perinate' as a legally born person once any anatomical part passes the vaginal opening and imposed full criminal, civil, and administrative liability on physicians for harm to such a perinate during procedures, with narrow exceptions only for spontaneous abortion or to save the mother's life. The plaintiffs alleged the Act effectively banned nearly all abortion methods at any stage of pregnancy, lacked adequate health protections, and was unconstitutionally vague. The court declared the Act unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, holding that it imposed an undue burden on women's right to choose an abortion, failed to include constitutionally required language protecting maternal health, contained an inadequate exception for the mother's life, and included vague terms encouraging arbitrary enforcement.

abortioncivil rights

In Walker v. Eagle Press & Equipment Co., plaintiff Michael Walker, an employee of a rigging company, sued defendant Eagle Press & Equipment Company for general negligence and failure to warn after falling through a large hole at the top of a disassembled hydraulic press that had been covered with cardboard during shipping, causing him permanent injuries. Defendant moved for summary judgment on grounds that any duty to warn was satisfied by written and verbal warnings, the sophisticated user doctrine barred recovery, and no traditional product liability claim applied because the injury did not involve a design or manufacturing defect. The court denied the motion, concluding that genuine issues of material fact remained as to the adequacy of the "Do Not Step" warning on the cardboard, whether the plaintiff received sufficient additional warnings, and whether the sophisticated user doctrine applied to eliminate liability.

torts & liabilityprocedure