Albert Joseph Engel

This case involved a challenge to Traverse City Public Schools' dual enrollment program, in which the district leased space in a Catholic high school (St. Francis) to conduct public school classes for part-time students from the parochial school after some Catholic grades closed. The court examined whether the arrangement, including nominal rent, removal of religious objects, state oversight, and limited staff interactions, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Drawing on Michigan Supreme Court precedent permitting such shared-time programs and federal cases like Lemon v. Kurtzman, the opinion analyzed facts regarding scheduling, religious release time, and entanglement risks to determine compliance with constitutional limits on aid to sectarian schools. The decision emphasized careful scrutiny of any public assistance to private religious institutions while acknowledging the public benefits of private education.

religious liberty

The case involved a dispute between the Wisconsin Potowatomies Indian tribe and the Michigan Department of Social Services over custody of three half-blood Indian children orphaned after their parents' deaths. The children had been living on the Hannahville Reservation before the incidents, and the state court had taken temporary custody and planned for foster care and adoption. The tribe sought to assert its jurisdiction to determine custody. The court held that the tribe had exclusive jurisdiction because the children's domicile was on the reservation at the time of their parents' deaths, and the state lacked authority to interfere with tribal self-government in such matters.

family lawfederal power

In Hendrickson v. Wilson, taxpayers and property owners in Leland, Michigan sued state natural resources agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to block further expansion of Leland Harbor boat facilities, alleging that the project would cause pollution and environmental harm in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and related state and federal laws because no environmental impact statement had been prepared. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo until a full hearing on the merits. The district court granted preliminary injunctive relief, determining that the plaintiffs had made a sufficient showing of potential irreparable injury and that the Corps' permit for the $81,300 project might constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under NEPA, thus requiring further factual and legal examination before construction proceeded.

environmentfederal power

This case is a class-action desegregation suit brought by Black students and parents in the Grand Rapids school district against the local board, surrounding suburban districts, and state education officials, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil-rights statutes through the maintenance of a racially segregated school system. Plaintiffs claimed that actions and inactions by the defendants created and perpetuated racial separation in student assignments, faculty placement, and school operations across the metropolitan area. The court joined eleven outlying districts as defendants, denied motions to dismiss, and conducted a 27-day trial on liability issues to examine historical demographics, residential patterns, and district practices. The opinion sets forth the factual and procedural background, including population data and the scope of the Kent Intermediate School District, to frame the constitutional claims for decision.

civil rights

This admiralty case involved a Michigan plaintiff suing a foreign cruise line corporation under the Death on the High Seas Act for the alleged wrongful death of his wife, claiming that inadequate medical care and misdiagnosis by the ship's doctor during a Caribbean voyage caused her death. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer venue. The court determined that federal law governs jurisdiction in this federal-question admiralty action and that minimum contacts with the United States satisfy due process under the Fifth Amendment, but ultimately granted the motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of Florida. The core reasoning for transfer was that the claim is a negligence action requiring testimony from the ship's crew and corporate personnel, most of whom are located in Florida or Puerto Rico, while the suit has no meaningful connection to Michigan beyond the plaintiff's residence.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a class action by students at Northern Michigan University challenging the constitutionality of a university housing regulation requiring single undergraduates to live in on-campus residence halls, with limited exceptions for age, family residence, or other approved circumstances. The plaintiffs argued that the rule violated their rights under the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, including claims of equal protection and due process, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting no genuine issue of material fact existed. The court granted the motion, holding that the regulation did not violate constitutional rights, as it was supported by a rational basis such as educational objectives or fiscal considerations and did not constitute arbitrary discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment.

civil rights

In Plym v. United States, taxpayers Lawrence and Mary Plym sought to deduct under IRC Section 212 a $75,000 personal payment made to settle a finder's fee claim by stockbrokers related to the 1962 merger of Kawneer Corporation and American Metal Climax. The court granted the IRS's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs' case. The core reasoning was that the expense originated in the merger transaction and therefore constituted a nondeductible capital expenditure under Section 263 rather than an ordinary and necessary expense under Section 212, and that the individual taxpayer could not deduct payment of an obligation that properly belonged to the corporation.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned whether tax penalties and interest incurred by a debtor company prior to its Chapter XI bankruptcy filing, but not listed in its statement of debts or noticed before confirmation, were discharged by judicial approval of its plan of arrangement with creditors. The court ruled that the penalties were not discharged and remained due and owing to the United States, which could collect interest at the statutory rate. The core reasoning was that confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 771 discharges only unsecured debts provided for in the arrangement (except those nondischargeable under § 35), and pre-petition tax penalties do not qualify as provable debts eligible for discharge, particularly where they were omitted from the filings and no agreement addressed them.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over the award of a contract for constructing a new wastewater treatment plant in Charlevoix, Michigan, which was partially funded by a federal grant. Plaintiff Shaw-Henderson, Inc., an unsuccessful bidder, challenged the city's decision to award the contract to Clark Construction Company, alleging irregularities in the bidding process and seeking relief against both the city and federal official R.J. Schneider. The court dismissed the claims, holding that Shaw-Henderson lacked standing under Michigan law to bring the action as an unsuccessful bidder. Additionally, the court reasoned that even if the winning bid were invalid, the decision on how to proceed remained within the city's discretion, and any remedy would involve remanding the matter to the city rather than awarding the contract to the plaintiff.

business & regulatoryprocedureenvironmentfederal power

In Witte v. Myers, a union business agent sued the local union's business manager and the union under Title I of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), claiming his discharge violated his free speech rights because it stemmed from his advocacy for changes like a district form of government, a western Michigan training center, and rank-and-file election of agents, and that he was denied due process protections under the Act and union bylaws. The court found that the business manager had authority under the union constitution and bylaws to appoint and summarily terminate business agents and other employees. It held that LMRDA due process requirements do not apply to removal from union office or employment, and that while free speech protections can extend to union officials, the discharge here was not shown to violate any rights protected by the statute. The court entered judgment for the defendants.

labor & employmentfree speech

This case involved plaintiffs Northway Lanes (a partnership) and Marshull, Inc. suing defendant Hackley Union National Bank under 12 U.S.C. §§ 85 and 86 to recover double the amount of alleged usurious interest paid on a $600,000 loan secured by two notes and a mortgage, after the plaintiffs refinanced and prepaid the debt in full. The court decided in favor of the bank, holding that the loan was not usurious and dismissing the claims. The core reasoning was that federal law permits national banks to reserve interest in advance on loans and to charge rates up to the maximum allowed for state banks under Michigan law, that a 5% prepayment charge did not constitute additional interest or violate usury limits, and that other charges like late fees were not shown to make the effective rate excessive.

business & regulatoryfederal power