Thomas Giles Kavanagh

This case involved a brokerage firm suing its customers to recover losses from selling stock on margin after the customers failed to meet a margin call. The defendants argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to federal securities laws and counterclaimed for damages claiming the broker should have sold earlier. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, holding it was a common-law debt action not subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction, and that the broker's leniency on margins did not create liability to the customers who were responsible for monitoring their speculative account.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Donald Emmons, who was convicted of perjury after signing an assumed name certificate with a false name and swearing to its truth before a notary public. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the conviction on appeal. The court explained that perjury under the relevant statute requires an oath that is authorized or required by law, as established in prior precedents. It determined that neither the assumed name certificate statute nor its prescribed form requires or authorizes any such oath regarding the certificate's truth. As a result, the false statement could not support a perjury charge.

criminal law

This case involved furniture manufacturers from the Grand Rapids, Michigan area and their association suing a Warren, Michigan retail furniture store for unfair competition and infringement of a common-law trade name. The plaintiffs claimed that 'Grand Rapids' in connection with furniture had acquired a specific meaning denoting products from their factories, and sought to stop the defendants from using the name. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that the defendants had engaged in unfair competition by misleading the public about a connection to Grand Rapids furniture makers. The court upheld an injunction limiting the defendants' use of the name unless they sold a substantial stock of actual Grand Rapids-area furniture, relying on prior precedent recognizing the trade name's value, a state statute prohibiting misleading corporate names, and equitable principles of fair competition that apply even to non-corporate entities and in the absence of direct competition for well-known names.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case arose from a 1964 car accident in which the defendant's truck struck a vehicle, killing Hattie Howell and injuring her daughter Anna Sue Collins; the decedent's husband, as administrator, brought a wrongful death action in Michigan circuit court seeking damages. Prior to this suit, the daughter obtained a federal court judgment against the same defendant for her personal injuries, establishing the defendant's negligence on identical facts. The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the negligence issue via collateral estoppel, but the trial court granted it only as to the daughter's interest and denied it for the remaining claims, citing lack of mutuality and privity. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial judge was not bound by strict mutuality requirements and instead had discretion to apply collateral estoppel based on equitable principles of justice, requiring consistent application across all parties if used at all; it therefore remanded for reconsideration of whether estoppel should bar relitigation of negligence for the entire wrongful death claim.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerned whether the Detroit Department of Street Railways (DSR) was entitled to a refund of Wayne County property taxes on its facilities located outside Detroit city limits following a 1965 statutory amendment that eliminated the requirement to pay county taxes on acquired transportation utilities. The DSR sought refunds for portions of its 1964 taxes (paid before the amendment's effective date) and all of its 1965 taxes (assessed before but payable after that date), while the county argued that the amendment did not affect assessments made prior to its effective date and that a 1941 statute fixing tax status as of the assessment date controlled. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the DSR was not entitled to a refund of taxes paid before the amendment became effective but was relieved of liability for taxes that became payable afterward, even if the assessment date preceded the amendment. The court reasoned that the 1965 legislature intended to provide immediate relief from future tax payments and that prior legislation did not restrict the power of later legislatures to alter tax exemptions. The court also rejected the county's interpretation of the 1941 provision as applying only to changes in ownership or property status, not to new statutory exemptions.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a real estate broker suing the owners of a bar for a $5,000 commission under an exclusive listing agreement that expired on January 11, 1964. The broker produced a buyer whose offer differed on lease cooperation, non-compete terms, and payment amounts, but the parties met after the expiration date and the buyer dropped the first two objections; the deal failed only over the monthly payment schedule. A jury found for the broker, and the trial court denied the sellers' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the sellers' own testimony showed they had waived or extended the deadline by arranging the meeting to complete the deal, that time was not expressly of the essence, and that the jury could properly resolve the remaining contractual dispute over payment terms. The court also noted that no directed-verdict motion had been made, so the JNOV ruling was procedurally proper.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure