This case involves an insurance coverage dispute between Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company and Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland (F&D) over whether F&D's directors and officers and professional services liability policy covers Michigan Millers for claims brought against it in an Indiana lawsuit. The underlying dispute arose after an explosion at a farm led to wrongful death suits, with Michigan Millers providing defense to some insured entities but initially disputing coverage for Cherrytree Farms LLC, prompting the Farms to sue Michigan Millers for breach of contract, bad faith, and related claims; additional negligent defense claims were later added. Michigan Millers had not notified its prior insurer, Federal, of the 2004 lawsuit due to an underwriting exclusion but notified F&D after the new claims in 2007. The court granted Michigan Millers' motion for summary judgment and denied F&D's, finding that the claims fell within the policy's coverage for professional services liability and were not excluded by the policy's terms, including the prior litigation date or known circumstances provisions.
This case involved a challenge by ABATE of Michigan and individual motorcyclists to enforcement of Michigan's motorcycle helmet law, which requires riders to wear USDOT-approved helmets and delegates rulemaking to the Michigan State Police. Plaintiffs argued that the State Police's online guidance on identifying novelty helmets was an improperly promulgated rule under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, rendering enforcement invalid, and that the law as applied violated their federal and state rights. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted defendants' cross-motion, entering judgment for the State Police. It reasoned that the webpage was not a binding rule requiring APA procedures because it merely provided enforcement officers with a practical tool to apply the existing USDOT standard already adopted by reference in the regulations, without altering rights or obligations. The court also found no violation of plaintiffs' rights in the manner of enforcement.
Jimmy Ray Short filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, claiming his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a notice of appeal. The court held an evidentiary hearing on whether Short expressly instructed counsel to appeal, whether counsel consulted him about appealing, and whether any failure to consult was unreasonable. Applying Strickland v. Washington and Roe v. Flores-Ortega, the court found Short failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he expressly requested an appeal and that counsel's lack of consultation was not objectively unreasonable because a rational defendant in Short's position would not have appealed, given the favorable sentencing outcome, lack of meritorious issues, and other factors. The court therefore denied the § 2255 motion and a certificate of appealability.
This case involves residents near a Coca-Cola fruit processing facility in Michigan who allege that the company's spraying of wastewater onto fields from 1979 to 2002 caused heavy metals to leach into groundwater, contaminating their properties and causing health issues and property damage. Plaintiffs brought claims including negligence, nuisance, trespass, strict liability, and violations of Michigan environmental statutes like NREPA and MEPA. On defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the court granted the motion in part by dismissing four counts (negligence per se, trespass, Part 201 of NREPA, and MEPA) and certain plaintiffs for lack of sufficient individual harm or subject-matter jurisdiction, while denying the motion as to the remaining plaintiffs and counts for negligence, nuisance, and strict liability. The court reasoned that the complaint met basic federal pleading standards for the surviving claims but that other claims were barred by statutory limits on judicial review of agency remediation orders or failed to state viable causes of action.
The case involves Janet Marcusse's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate her 2005 convictions and 25-year sentence for mail fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering offenses. After a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, the court determined that summary dismissal of the entire motion was not appropriate and directed the government to respond to selected arguments among her 30 grounds, while dismissing others as meritless. The court reasoned that most claims failed because they were unsupported conclusions contradicted by the record, involved non-constitutional errors without a showing of fundamental defect, or were procedurally defaulted absent cause and prejudice or actual innocence; it reserved certain issues such as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, improper confiscation of legal materials, and cumulative error for further response. Specific meritless claims included allegations of improper tax code application and additional prosecutorial misconduct.
In United States v. Walker, the defendant sought to suppress evidence of crack cocaine and marijuana trafficking discovered after officers attached a GPS tracking device to her vehicle without a warrant, used it to monitor her travel on public roads, and then obtained a search warrant based on that information. The court denied the motion to suppress, overruled the defendant's objections, and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The core reasoning was that the warrantless placement and monitoring of the GPS device did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search because the defendant had knowingly exposed her vehicle's location to the public by driving on public roads, consistent with Katz v. United States. The court also rejected a newly raised claim that the GPS monitoring created an unconstitutional chilling effect on First Amendment rights, finding no supporting authority or actual allegation of chilled speech.
