Message-ID: <21890768.1075859833240.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: bounce-ejournal-255481@lists.michbar.org
To: ejournal@lists.michbar.org
Subject: State Bar of Michigan e-Journal - 5/17/01
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: bounce-ejournal-255481@lists.michbar.org
X-To: "E-Journal" <ejournal@lists.michbar.org>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Mark_Haedicke_Jun2001\Notes Folders\Notes inbox
X-Origin: Haedicke-M
X-FileName: mhaedic.nsf

If you cannot read today's e-Journal, please visit this link:?=20
http://www.michbar.org/e-journal/051701.html Or to receive a plain text=20
version, please send an e-mail to lyris@lists.michbar.org? In the body,=20
type:? unsubscribe ejournal and on the next line type:? subscribe=20
ejournal-text


[IMAGE]

Ad 1

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

The  e-Journal is available to members of the State Bar of Michigan at no=
=20
additional  charge thanks in part to the generous support of our advertiser=
s.=20
Please  be sure to support these State Bar partners and visit their Interne=
t=20
sites  frequently for information about their products and services.  =09?=
=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09[IMAGE]
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09State  Bar of Michigan e-Journal for Thursday, May 17, 2001
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09?qlink
=09=09
=09=09?Use  our specifically designed hypertext links --Quicklinks --  to j=
ump to=20
the desired area of today's=20
=09=09e-Journal =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09?cases
=09=09Cases  affecting the following practice areas are summarized  in toda=
y's=20
e-Journal: =20
=09=09
=09=09Administrative Law  =20
=09=09Civil  Rights  =20
=09=09Constitutional  Law  =20
=09=09Construction Law  =20
=09=09Corrections                        =20
=09=09Criminal  Law  =20
=09=09Employment  & Labor Law =20
=09=09Family Law  =20
=09=09Litigation =20
=09=09Municipal =20
=09=09Negligence  & Intentional Tort =20
=09=09Real  Property  =20
=09=09
=09=09Special  Notes: Today's e-Journal includes summaries of four  Michiga=
n=20
Supreme Court opinions and six Michigan Court of  Appeals published opinion=
s=20
in the following practice areas:  Administrative Law, Civil Rights,=20
Constitutional Law, Construction  Law, Employment & Labor Law, Family Law,=
=20
Litigation,  Negligence & Intentional Tort, and Real Property.
=09=09
=09=09Due  to technical difficulties, a summary of the Supreme Court  decis=
ion in=20
Bolt v City of Lansing will appear in  tomorrow's e-Journal.=20
=09=09
=09=09[IMAGE]   =20
=09=09
=09=09?editorial
=09=09Please click  here to read today's Other  Editorial
=09=09[IMAGE] =20
=09=09
=09=09Tell  Us What You Think
=09=09Visit Our New Townhall Forum Electronic Bulletin Board
=09=09
=09=09Amendment  of Local Court Rules 2.100 and 8.108 of the Wayne Circuit =
 Court,=20
and Repeal of Local Court Rules 2.301, 2.401 and  2.503=20
=09=09
=09=09?classified
=09=09Listings  in the following areas are in today's Classified  Section: =
 =20
=09=09
=09=09Confidential  Records Destruction   =20
=09=09Expert  Witness  =20
=09=09Lawsuit  Financials  =20
=09=09Legal  Research  =20
=09=09Office  Space Available   =20
=09=09Positions  Available=20
=09=09Services =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09?fieldspractice
=09=09
=09=09Need  to refer a case? See today's Fields of Practice  Listings:=20
=09=09
=09=09ADR/Arbitration/Mediation =20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Administrative  Law =20
=09=09Adoption =20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Alternative  Dispute Resolution =20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Antitrust/Advertising/Trade  Regulation=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Appeals =20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Appellate  Law=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Automotive  Warranty Law=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Business  & Taxation=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Construction  Law=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Copyrights =20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Criminal  Law=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Environmental  Law=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Family  Law=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Federal  False Claims (Qui Tam) Actions=20
=09=09Health  Law=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Hospital  & Medical Negligence=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Immigration  & Naturalization=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Immigration  Law=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Insurance  Law=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Intellectual  Property Law =20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Labor  & Employment Law=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Litigation =20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Medical  Malpractice=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Real  Estate=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Special  Education Law=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Tax  Litigation & Disputes=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Transportation  Law=20
=09=09 =20
=09=09Worker's  Compensation  =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09?newsandmoves
=09=09
=09=09See  this week's News  & Moves for information about your colleagues:=
 =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09barevents?=20
=09=09
=09=09See  today's  Bar  Events section for news about upcoming programs an=
d =20
activities: =20
=09=09
=09=09Criminal  Law Brown Bag "Therapeutic Drug Court"=20
=09=09Eighth  Trailblazers Dinner
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09case  summaries =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Administrative Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back               to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Registration fees for interstate motor carriers under the 1=
991 =20
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA); Whether  effect o=
f=20
reciprocity agreements must be considered in determining  amount of fee=20
charged or collected on November 15, 1991; Interstate  Commerce Commission=
=20
(ICC)
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
=09=09Case  Name:? Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. State of Michigan
=09=09e-Journal  Number:? 10238
=09=09Judge(s):?  Weaver, Corrigan, Taylor, Young, Jr., and Markman; Dissen=
t =01) =20
Kelly; Dissent =01) Cavanagh
=09=09
=09=09In an issue  of first impression in any state court, the court held t=
hat=20
under  the plain language of the ISTEA, reciprocity agreements were=20
irrelevant  in determining what registration fees were charged or collected=
 =20
as of November 15, 1991. Plaintiff alleged that defendants collected =20
registration fees in excess of the amount allowed under ISTEA, contending =
=20
that Michigan could not alter its reciprocity agreements because  these wer=
e=20
frozen at their November 15, 1991 levels. The court declined  to defer to t=
he=20
ICC=01,s interpretation banning states from charging  registration fees in=
=20
excess of preexisting reciprocal discounts.  The court determined that the=
=20
plain meaning of the ISTEA was clear  and applied the statute as written=20
without reaching the agency interpretation.  The ISTEA itself referred only=
=20
to the fees collected or charged,  and contained no reference to reciprocit=
y=20
agreements. The court  concluded that it must look at the generic fee=20
Michigan charged  or collected from carriers as of November 15, 1991, not a=
t=20
the fees  paid by plaintiff in any given year. Reversed and remanded.=20
=09=09
=09=09Justice Kelly,  dissenting, disagreed with the conclusion that recipr=
ocity=20
agreements  were not relevant to determining the registration fees that=20
Michigan  charged and would have affirmed the decisions of the Court of=20
Appeals  and Court of Claims in favor of plaintiff.
=09=09
=09=09Justice Cavanagh,  also dissenting, likewise found the statutory lang=
uage=20
ambiguous  and that the ICC permissibly construed it in taking into account=
 =20
reciprocity agreements.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion=20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Civil  Rights
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back               to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Whether an alleged adverse employment action against an emp=
loyee =20
on the basis of her former intimate relationship with her supervisor =20
presented a cognizable claim of sex discrimination under the CRA;  Quid pro=
=20
quo sexual harassment; Hostile work environment;  Respondeat superior; Sex=
=20
discrimination; Breach of contract;  Intentional infliction of emotional=20
distress
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
=09=09Case  Name:? Corley v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.=20
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10218
=09=09Judge(s):?  Neff, Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen
=09=09
=09=09In  an issue of first impression regarding whether alleged adverse=20
employment  action against an employee on the basis of her former intimate=
=20
relationship  with her supervisor presents a cognizable claim of sex=20
discrimination  under the CRA, the court held that it does.  Therefore,=20
summary disposition of plaintiff=01,s sexual harassment  claim in favor of=
=20
defendants was improper. Plaintiff alleged that  she was subjected to a=20
hostile work environment, sexual harassment,  disparate treatment, and=20
unlawful termination because of her sex  and her prior relationship with=20
defendant-Smith. Plaintiff established  sufficient facts to survive a motio=
n=20
for summary disposition under  either quid pro quo sexual harassment or=20
hostile work environment.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded=
.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion=20
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks=20
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law
=09=09
=09=09Issues:  Alleged discrimination based on race and marital status; The=
  CRA=20
statute of limitations; Wrongful discharge; Failure to timely  initiate an=
=20
appeal of an administrative agency's final decision  to the circuit court;=
=20
Constitutional issues not within the agency's  jurisdiction may be raised i=
n=20
the circuit court through the Administrative  Procedures Act (APA) review=
=20
procedure
=09=09Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
=09=09Case  Name: Womack-Scott v. Department of Corrections
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10219
=09=09Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Doctoroff, Hoekstra, and Markey
=09=09
=09=09Since the plaintiff-former  employee failed to bring her CRA claims w=
ithin=20
three years of the  date of her initial discharge for violation of one of=
=20
defendant's  work rules, the trial court properly granted summary=20
disposition  to defendant. Plaintiff argued that the trial court used the=
=20
wrong  date when calculating the limitation period and should have used  th=
e=20
last day she was employed by defendant. Although plaintiff was  technically=
=20
reinstated for a period of time as a result of administrative  decisions an=
d=20
again discharged, the court disagreed that the second  and final discharge=
=20
should apply for purposes of calculating the  limitations period.=20
Accordingly, plaintiff's race and marital status  discrimination claims=20
accrued on the date of her initial discharge  that was for allegedly=20
discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff's wrongful  discharge claim was also=20
properly dismissed by the trial court because  plaintiff failed to appeal t=
he=20
final administrative decision to  the circuit court within the 60-day time=
=20
limitation provided by  the APA. Affirmed.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Age, gender, and race discrimination; Retaliation
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name:? Jones v. Wayne State Univ.
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10195
=09=09Judge(s):  Per Curiam =01) Bandstra, Zahra, and Meter=20
=09=09
=09=09Plaintiff=01,s  claims of age, gender, and race discrimination were p=
roperly=20
dismissed.  Plaintiff, a 55-year old African-American female, alleged that=
=20
her  reassignment was motivated by defendant-employer=01,s administrators=
=01, =20
desire to assemble a young, Caucasian male staff. Plaintiff alleged  that a=
=20
statement by defendant=01,s manager was direct evidence defendant  discrimi=
nated=20
against her based on age. However, at most, plaintiff=01,s  testimony=20
established that defendant=01,s manager observed that the  department was m=
ade=20
up of young, inexperienced employees. Further,  plaintiff=01,s subjective=
=20
impressions of her reassignment as a dead-end  job were insufficient to=20
establish a prima facie case of  discrimination. Plaintiff=01,s discriminat=
ory=20
replacement arguments  based on gender and race failed because she was not=
=20
replaced by  a nonmember of the protected class. Summary disposition in=20
favor  of the defendant was affirmed.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Constitutional Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back               to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Real Property
=09=09
=09=09Issues:  The constitutionality of the Opening of Private Roads and Te=
mporary =20
Highways Act (the Private Roads Act (MCL 229.1 et seq.));  Whether the act=
=20
authorizes a taking primarily benefiting a private  rather than a public=20
purpose; Overruling Bieker v. Suttons Bay  Twp. Supervisor and McKeighan v.=
=20
Grass Lake Twp. Supervisor  II
=09=09Court:  Michigan Supreme Court
=09=09Case  Name: Tolksdorf v. Griffith
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10240
=09=09Judge(s):  Kelly, Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Taylor, Young, Jr.; Not=
=20
participating  - Markman
=09=09
=09=09The court struck  down the Private Roads Act (allowing a private land=
owner to=20
petition  a township supervisor to open a private road across another=20
landowner's  property) as providing for an unconstitutional taking under=20
art.  10, o 2 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, because it authorizes  =
a=20
taking that primarily benefits a private rather than a public  purpose.=20
Plaintiffs owned landlocked property and defendants owned  a neighboring=20
parcel. Defendants refused plaintiffs' requests seeking  a paved road acros=
s=20
their parcel and an easement for utility lines.  Plaintiffs sued requesting=
 a=20
writ of mandamus compelling the township  supervisor to proceed under the=
=20
act. The trial court ruled against  plaintiffs and the Court of Appeals fou=
nd=20
error in the refusal to  issue the writ. The court concluded that since the=
=20
act gives individuals  a permanent and continuous right to pass over=20
another's property,  it allowed a permanent physical occupation of private=
=20
property by  means of government action, and was a taking. The taking=20
authorized  by the act appeared to merely be an attempt by a private entity=
 =20
to use the state's powers to acquire what it could not get through  arms'=
=20
length negotiations with defendants, and the primary benefit  inured to the=
=20
landlocked private owners, rather than the public.  Reversed and the trial=
=20
court's ruling for defendants was reinstated.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Construction Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back               to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Statute of limitations for civil claims brought under the M=
ichigan =20
builder=01,s trust fund act; Accrual of civil claims under builder=01,s  tr=
ust fund=20
act
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
=09=09Case  Name:? DiPonio Constr. Co., Inc. v. Rosati Masonry Co., Inc.
=09=09e-Journal  Number:? 10217
=09=09Judge(s):?  Smolenski, Zahra, and Gage
=09=09
=09=09In an issue  of first impression, the court ruled that the six-year s=
tatute=20
of  limitations found in MCL 600.5813 applies to civil claims brought  unde=
r=20
the Michigan builder=01,s trust act therefore, the trial court  erred in=20
dismissing plaintiff-subcontractor=01,s action on the basis  it was time-ba=
rred.=20
Applying analysis found in case precedent, the  court concluded that when a=
=20
statute itself does not provide a limitation  period, a cause of action=20
arising from a statutory violation is  subject to the six-year limitation=
=20
period found in o 5813. Plaintiff=01,s  claim accrued when defendants were =
paid=20
on the project and defendants  failed to pay plaintiff the amounts due on=
=20
that project. Reversed.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Negligence & Intentional Tort
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Retained control over the construction project; Immunity un=
der the =20
exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA; Reliance on the Supreme  Court=01,s=
=20
plurality opinion in Bitar v.Wakim; Expert=01,s testimony  on the vibration=
 from=20
a bulldozer theory; Duty to warn
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name:? Piraine v. BDP Dev.
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10192
=09=09Judge(s):?  Per Curiam- Griffin, Holbrook, Jr., and Murphy
=09=09
=09=09The court corrected  a clerical error and ordered that the final para=
graph of=20
the earlier  opinion (see e-Journal  # 10080 in the 5/3/01 edition) be=20
stricken and replaced  with the following language: =01&The lower court=01,=
s orders=20
denying summary  disposition are affirmed and the matter is remanded for=20
further  proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain=20
jurisdiction.=018  The opinion remained the same in all other respects. The=
=20
earlier  release date was vacated.=20
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Corrections
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back               to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Parole; Legitimate reasons for parole board to deny parole =
to  a=20
prisoner assessed with only an average probability of parole
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name:? Searles v. Parole Bd.
=09=09e-Journal  Number:? 10210
=09=09Judge(s):?  Memorandum =01) Gage, Cavanagh, and Wilder
=09=09
=09=09Defendant-parole  board did not abuse its discretion in denying parol=
e to=20
plaintiff,  a prisoner assessed with only an average probability of parole,=
 =20
and the trial court erred in reversing the parole board=01,s decision.  The=
=20
parole board identified several legitimate reasons for denying  plaintiff=
=20
parole, including (1) the type of crime (CSC II), (2)  the identity of the=
=20
victim, (3) plaintiff=01,s unstable domestic and  employment histories, and=
 (4)=20
her inability to follow rules, reflected  in her misconduct record. The tri=
al=20
court=01,s order was reversed and  the parole board=01,s decision denying p=
arole=20
was reinstated.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Criminal  Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back               to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Sufficiency of evidence to support conviction of third-degr=
ee=20
fleeing  or eluding a police officer; Alleged police brutality
=09=09Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)=20
=09=09Case  Name:? People v. Buchanan
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10198
=09=09Judge(s):?  Per Curiam =01) Gage, Cavanagh, and Wilder
=09=09
=09=09There was sufficient  evidence to support defendant=01,s conviction o=
f=20
third-degree fleeing  or eluding a police officer. Defendant argued that th=
e=20
evidence  failed to show that he refused to obey a clear signal to stop his=
 =20
vehicle. The evidence showed that defendant continued to drive at  a high=
=20
rate of speed, even after a marked police vehicle activated  its overhead=
=20
lights, and that defendant only pulled into a parking  lot because two poli=
ce=20
vehicles blocked his path. The evidence also  demonstrated that defendant w=
as=20
driving with an unlawful blood alcohol  level, had a suspended license, and=
=20
was a parole absconder, which  supported an inference that he was=20
intentionally trying to evade  the police. Affirmed.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09Issues:  Whether the trial court's refusal to give the requested inst=
ruction =20
on the lesser included offense of larceny from a person was harmless  error=
;=20
The Carines/Olano plain error rule
=09=09Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name: People v. Davidson
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10187
=09=09Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Holbrook, Jr. and McDonald; Dissent - Wilder
=09=09
=09=09Since the erroneous  unarmed robbery instructions seriously affected =
the=20
fairness, integrity,  or public reputation of judicial proceedings=20
independent of the  defendant's innocence and the error was not harmless,=
=20
defendant's  conviction of two counts of unarmed robbery was reversed and=
=20
the  case remanded for a new trial. The prosecution conceded that the  tria=
l=20
court erred in refusing to give the requested instruction  on the lesser=20
included offense of larceny from a person, but argued  that the error had a=
=20
negligible effect on the outcome of the case  and was harmless. The court=
=20
disagreed because the jury was improperly  instructed on the crime of unarm=
ed=20
robbery, the crime for which  defendant was convicted, and specific intent.=
=20
The court could not  conclude that the jury's verdict would have been the=
=20
same had it  been given the proper instruction for unarmed robbery. The=20
court  also concluded that the instructions given by the trial court=20
conflated  the crime of unarmed robbery and accessory after the fact.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Motion for a new trial; Whether complainant=01,s recanting =
affidavit =20
was newly discovered evidence; Whether defendant demonstrated a  miscarriag=
e=20
of justice; Whether constitutional rights were violated;  Waiver of trial b=
y=20
jury
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name:? People v. Felder
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10201
=09=09Judge(s):?  Per Curiam =01) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly
=09=09
=09=09Defendant=01,s  motion for a new trial was properly denied because co=
mplainant=01,
s  affidavit recanting her testimony was unreliable. The record relating  t=
o=20
the circumstances immediately preceding complainant=01,s recantation  suppo=
rted=20
the trial court=01,s finding that defendant engaged in inappropriate  and=
=20
harassing behavior toward complainant, which indicated that  defendant=20
coerced the complainant=01,s recanting testimony. The record  indicated tha=
t=20
defendant contacted the complainant four times by  telephone, followed her =
in=20
her vehicle, confronted her in the presence  of her children, and drove by=
=20
her home. The complainant testified  that she was afraid, that she agreed t=
o=20
recant her trial testimony  because she wanted no further contact with=20
defendant, and wanted  him to stop harassing her. Defendant=01,s conviction=
 of=20
assault with  a dangerous weapon was affirmed.=20
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09Issues:  Whether defendant revoked his waiver of rights and unambiguo=
usly =20
requested an attorney; Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions  of=
=20
second-degree murder and felony-firearm; Whether defendant had  a=20
constitutional right to present witnesses at the preliminary examination
=09=09Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name: People v. Harris
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10202
=09=09Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Gage, Cavanagh, and Wilder
=09=09
=09=09Since conduct  and silence do not constitute an assertion of the righ=
t to=20
remain  silent, the trial court did not err by admitting defendant's=20
statements  made after he placed his hand over a question on the police=20
officer's  statement form and told the officer, "don't write that".  After=
=20
being informed of his Miranda rights before questioning  began, defendant=
=20
chose to voluntarily answer questions. Defendant  answered the first nine=
=20
questions, however after initially answering  the next question, he put his=
=20
hand over the question on the form  and asked the officer not to write down=
=20
his response because it  was untruthful. Defendant did not answer two more=
=20
questions he was  asked, then informed the officer he would not answer any=
=20
more questions,  and wanted an attorney. Defendant claimed that his act of=
=20
placing  his hand over the statement form and telling the officer not to =
=20
write down his response constituted an assertion of the Fifth Amendment =20
right to remain silent and revoked his previous waiver of that right.  The=
=20
court disagreed because it was not until after the officer asked  two=20
subsequent questions, that defendant verbally and unambiguously  invoked hi=
s=20
right to an attorney. Affirmed.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09Issues:  Sufficiency of evidence to convict of first-degree felony mu=
rder =20
and felony-firearm; Failure to instruct on lesser included offenses; =20
Distinction between lesser included offense and a cognate lesser  included=
=20
offense; Prosecutorial misconduct; Jury instructions on  stricken testimony=
;=20
Ineffective assistance of counsel
=09=09Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name: People v. Williams
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10193
=09=09Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Kelly, Smolenski, and Meter
=09=09
=09=09Even in the  absence of direct evidence identifying defendant as the=
=20
perpetrator,  the circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences from it=
=20
were  sufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant knew the victim's =
=20
daily routine of leaving for work about 5:00 a.m., knew of the victim's =20
habit of carrying large sums of money, and thus shot and ultimately  killed=
=20
the victim while attempting to rob him. At 5:03 a.m., the  victim's widow=
=20
heard a gunshot, discovered her husband outside with  a gunshot in the neck=
,=20
and that his wallet was missing. A neighbor  saw defendant leave her house,=
=20
where he lived, just before the shooting.  Another neighbor saw defendant=
=20
walking very fast down the street  right after the shooting. A gunshot=20
residue test performed about  three hours after the shooting revealed that=
=20
defendant had residue  on his hands and that the residue came from a gun=20
being fired. Affirmed.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Employment & Labor Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back               to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Family Law
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Whether certain categories of payments made by defendant to=
 its =20
employees constituted =01&earnings=018 within the meaning of the Federal  C=
onsumer=20
Credit Protection Act (CCPA); Support and Parenting Time  Enforcement Act=
=20
(SPTEA)
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
=09=09Case  Name:? Genesee County Friend of the Court v. General Motors  Co=
rp.
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10241
=09=09Judge(s):?  Per Curiam =01) Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Taylor=
, Young,=20
Jr.,  and Markman=20
=09=09
=09=09The  court held that all categories of payments (profit-sharing, reco=
gnition =20
awards, and signing bonuses) made by defendant to its employees  constitute=
d=20
=01&earnings=018 within the meaning of CCPA and are subject  to a limitatio=
n on the=20
amount that may be captured by income withholding  orders under SPTEA. The=
=20
lower courts held that profit-sharing payments  and recognition awards were=
=20
not earnings, but that signing bonus  payments were. After receiving the=20
income withholding orders, defendant  paid to the Friend of the Court 50% o=
f=20
the disposable earnings because  it believed that the category of payments =
at=20
issue were subject  to the federal percentage limits on garnishment. The=20
judgments of  the Court of Appeals and the circuit court were reversed in=
=20
part,  and remanded.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks=20
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Civil Rights
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Whether an alleged adverse employment action against an emp=
loyee =20
on the basis of her former intimate relationship with her supervisor =20
presented a cognizable claim of sex discrimination under the CRA;  Quid pro=
=20
quo sexual harassment; Hostile work environment;  Respondeat superior; Sex=
=20
discrimination; Breach of contract;  Intentional infliction of emotional=20
distress
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
=09=09Case  Name:? Corley v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.=20
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10218
=09=09Judge(s):?  Neff, Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen
=09=09
=09=09In  an issue of first impression regarding whether alleged adverse=20
employment  action against an employee on the basis of her former intimate=
=20
relationship  with her supervisor presents a cognizable claim of sex=20
discrimination  under the CRA, the court held that it does.  Therefore,=20
summary disposition of plaintiff=01,s sexual harassment  claim in favor of=
=20
defendants was improper. Plaintiff alleged that  she was subjected to a=20
hostile work environment, sexual harassment,  disparate treatment, and=20
unlawful termination because of her sex  and her prior relationship with=20
defendant-Smith. Plaintiff established  sufficient facts to survive a motio=
n=20
for summary disposition under  either quid pro quo sexual harassment or=20
hostile work environment.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded=
.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Civil Rights
=09=09
=09=09Issues:  Alleged discrimination based on race and marital status; The=
  CRA=20
statute of limitations; Wrongful discharge; Failure to timely  initiate an=
=20
appeal of an administrative agency's final decision  to the circuit court;=
=20
Constitutional issues not within the agency's  jurisdiction may be raised i=
n=20
the circuit court through the Administrative  Procedures Act (APA) review=
=20
procedure
=09=09Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
=09=09Case  Name: Womack-Scott v. Department of Corrections
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10219
=09=09Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Doctoroff, Hoekstra, and Markey
=09=09
=09=09Since the plaintiff-former  employee failed to bring her CRA claims w=
ithin=20
three years of the  date of her initial discharge for violation of one of=
=20
defendant's  work rules, the trial court properly granted summary=20
disposition  to defendant. Plaintiff argued that the trial court used the=
=20
wrong  date when calculating the limitation period and should have used  th=
e=20
last day she was employed by defendant. Although plaintiff was  technically=
=20
reinstated for a period of time as a result of administrative  decisions an=
d=20
again discharged, the court disagreed that the second  and final discharge=
=20
should apply for purposes of calculating the  limitations period.=20
Accordingly, plaintiff's race and marital status  discrimination claims=20
accrued on the date of her initial discharge  that was for allegedly=20
discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff's wrongful  discharge claim was also=20
properly dismissed by the trial court because  plaintiff failed to appeal t=
he=20
final administrative decision to  the circuit court within the 60-day time=
=20
limitation provided by  the APA. Affirmed.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Civil Rights
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Age, gender, and race discrimination; Retaliation
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name:? Jones v. Wayne State Univ.
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10195
=09=09Judge(s):  Per Curiam =01) Bandstra, Zahra, and Meter=20
=09=09
=09=09Plaintiff=01,s  claims of age, gender, and race discrimination were p=
roperly=20
dismissed.  Plaintiff, a 55-year old African-American female, alleged that=
=20
her  reassignment was motivated by defendant-employer=01,s administrators=
=01, =20
desire to assemble a young, Caucasian male staff. Plaintiff alleged  that a=
=20
statement by defendant=01,s manager was direct evidence defendant  discrimi=
nated=20
against her based on age. However, at most, plaintiff=01,s  testimony=20
established that defendant=01,s manager observed that the  department was m=
ade=20
up of young, inexperienced employees. Further,  plaintiff=01,s subjective=
=20
impressions of her reassignment as a dead-end  job were insufficient to=20
establish a prima facie case of  discrimination. Plaintiff=01,s discriminat=
ory=20
replacement arguments  based on gender and race failed because she was not=
=20
replaced by  a nonmember of the protected class. Summary disposition in=20
favor  of the defendant was affirmed.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Litigation
=09=09
=09=09Issues:  Whether the trial court erred in affirming the arbitration a=
ward =20
because the arbitrators? exceeded their authority; Whether defendants =20
breached the employment agreement (EA); Interpretation of the EA  and relat=
ed=20
documents; Whether the trial court erred in refusing  to award statutory=20
interest from the date of the arbitration award;  Whether plaintiffs were=
=20
entitled to 12% interest because the arbitration  award was rendered on a=
=20
written instrument; Economic development  commission (EDC)
=09=09Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name: Young v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10190
=09=09Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Collins, Jansen, and White
=09=09
=09=09The arbitrators  did not exceed their authority when they issued the=
=20
arbitration  award against the defendant-tribe EDC for breach of plaintiff'=
s =20
EA, therefore the trial court did not err in confirming the award. =20
Defendants argued that the joint venture master agreement, which  was signe=
d=20
by the tribe EDC, contained an arbitration provision  and a waiver of=20
sovereign immunity, but contended that the arbitrators  did not have=20
authority to decide whether the tribe EDC breached  the EA because the trib=
e=20
EDC did not sign the EA and was not a party  to it. The court concluded tha=
t=20
when the various documents, which  referred to each other, were read togeth=
er=20
the parties intended  that the documents be construed as one agreement.=20
Accordingly, a  breach of the EA constituted a breach of the joint venture=
=20
master  agreement, the claim was subject to arbitration, and the tribe EDC =
=20
could be held liable for the breach. Affirmed, but remanded for  modificati=
on=20
of the judgment to include post-arbitration award interest  at 12%.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Family Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Whether certain categories of payments made by defendant to=
 its =20
employees constituted =01&earnings=018 within the meaning of the Federal  C=
onsumer=20
Credit Protection Act (CCPA); Support and Parenting Time  Enforcement Act=
=20
(SPTEA)
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
=09=09Case  Name:? Genesee County Friend of the Court v. General Motors  Co=
rp.
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10241
=09=09Judge(s):?  Per Curiam =01) Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Taylor=
, Young,=20
Jr.,  and Markman=20
=09=09
=09=09The  court held that all categories of payments (profit-sharing, reco=
gnition =20
awards, and signing bonuses) made by defendant to its employees  constitute=
d=20
=01&earnings=018 within the meaning of CCPA and are subject  to a limitatio=
n on the=20
amount that may be captured by income withholding  orders under SPTEA. The=
=20
lower courts held that profit-sharing payments  and recognition awards were=
=20
not earnings, but that signing bonus  payments were. After receiving the=20
income withholding orders, defendant  paid to the Friend of the Court 50% o=
f=20
the disposable earnings because  it believed that the category of payments =
at=20
issue were subject  to the federal percentage limits on garnishment. The=20
judgments of  the Court of Appeals and the circuit court were reversed in=
=20
part,  and remanded.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Divorce; Judicial review of property division award rendere=
d =20
pursuant to binding arbitration; Alimony in gross as property division; =20
Arbitration award providing that if sum certain awarded to spouse  is not=
=20
paid it shall be considered spousal support and nondischargeable  in=20
bankruptcy; Arbitrator=01,s factual findings; Whether arbitrator  violated=
=20
Michigan law
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
=09=09Case  Name:? Krist v. Krist
=09=09e-Journal  Number:? 10220
=09=09Judge(s):?  Per Curiam =01) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly
=09=09
=09=09Defendant-spouse  did not satisfy the exacting =01&manifest disregard=
 of the=20
law=018 standard  required for judicial intervention in a property division=
=20
award  issued after binding arbitration and incorporated into the parties=
=01, =20
divorce judgment. Defendant argued that the arbitration decision  contained=
=20
an award of spousal support in contravention of the settlement  agreement.=
=20
The offending paragraph in the award actually provided  for a lump sum=20
payment, or alimony in gross, which was in the nature  of the division of=
=20
property and was completely consistent with the  parties=01, binding arbitr=
ation=20
and settlement agreement. The court  also found no error with the arbitrato=
r=01,
s provision that if the  sum certain awarded to plaintiff was not paid, tha=
t=20
amount would  be considered spousal support and nondischargeable in=20
bankruptcy.  The language employed in the award was a mechanism to frustrat=
e =20
any attempt by defendant to circumvent the property division by  filing for=
=20
bankruptcy and discharging the obligation owed to plaintiff.  Affirmed.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Divorce; Marital assets; Whether the trial court invaded=20
defendant's  separate property; Pre-marital agreement; Spousal support;=20
Whether  plaintiff's first husband should share in the burden of the spousa=
l =20
support award
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name:? Cowen v. Cowen
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10204
=09=09Judge(s):?  Per Curiam =01) Wilder, Cavanagh, Hood
=09=09
=09=09The trial court  properly held that the parties=01, home and Florida =
condominium=20
were  part of the marital estate. It was undisputed that both the home  and=
=20
condominium were purchased after the parties married. Defendant  testified=
=20
that plaintiff was a joint owner of the marital home and  that he intended=
=20
the condominium to be owed jointly between them,  which showed that defenda=
nt=20
intended that plaintiff be the joint  owner of the properties. By adding=20
plaintiff=01,s name to each deed  of title, defendant willingly included bo=
th=20
properties in the marital  estate, therefore whether plaintiff helped=20
acquire, improve, or  accumulate the property was irrelevant. Affirmed.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09Issues:  Termination of parental rights; Alleged denial of right to j=
ury =20
trial
=09=09Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name: In re Curry
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10212
=09=09Judge(s):  Memorandum - McDonald, Smolenski, and Kelly
=09=09
=09=09Since the respondent-father  had notice of the proceedings but chose =
to=20
remain uninvolved until  after the adjudication, and waited until the=20
termination hearing  to request a jury, the trial court did not err in=20
denying his request  for a jury trial. The trial court's order terminating=
=20
respondent's  parental rights was affirmed.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09Issues:  Termination of parental rights; Whether release of parental =
 rights=20
should be revoked; Failure to petition the family court to  revoke release
=09=09Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name: In re Kelly
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10211
=09=09Judge(s):  Memorandum - McDonald, Smolenski, and Kelly
=09=09
=09=09Since the respondent-mother  failed to petition the family court to r=
evoke=20
her release of parental  rights, the issue was not properly before the cour=
t.=20
The court affirmed  the family court's order terminating respondent's=20
parental rights  to one of the children following her voluntary release of=
=20
parental  rights pursuant to MCL 710.29.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Litigation
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back               to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Negligence & Intentional Tort
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Alleged negligence by violating state and local law in prov=
iding =20
alcohol to minors; Jury instruction regarding the impairment defense; =20
Failure to strike plaintiff=01,s testimony regarding her percentage  of fau=
lt;=20
Failing to cure the violation of plaintiff=01,s substantial  rights when de=
fense=20
counsel improperly referred to a fee agreement  and improperly elicited=20
testimony from police officers that had  been excluded
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
=09=09Case  Name:? Piccalo v. Nix
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10215
=09=09Judge(s):?  Hood and McDonald; Dissent =01) Zahra
=09=09
=09=09The  trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the impairme=
nt =20
defense because it would be absurd to allow the defense of impairment  to a=
n=20
individual who caused or created the impairment of the injured  person. Due=
=20
to the cumulative effect of errors regarding the trial  court=01,s rulings =
there=20
was cumulative prejudice. Plaintiff, a passenger  in a van where there were=
=20
only two seats, laid or sat in the back  of the van and was injured by tire=
s=20
inside the van, when the driver,  an underage drinker, who was served alcoh=
ol=20
at defendant=01,s home,  failed to manipulate a slight curve in the gravel =
road=20
and drove  the van into a tree. The case was reversed and remanded for a ne=
w =20
trial.=20
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks=20
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law
=09=09
=09=09Issues:  Whether the trial court erred in affirming the arbitration a=
ward =20
because the arbitrators? exceeded their authority; Whether defendants =20
breached the employment agreement (EA); Interpretation of the EA  and relat=
ed=20
documents; Whether the trial court erred in refusing  to award statutory=20
interest from the date of the arbitration award;  Whether plaintiffs were=
=20
entitled to 12% interest because the arbitration  award was rendered on a=
=20
written instrument; Economic development  commission (EDC)
=09=09Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name: Young v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10190
=09=09Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Collins, Jansen, and White
=09=09
=09=09The arbitrators  did not exceed their authority when they issued the=
=20
arbitration  award against the defendant-tribe EDC for breach of plaintiff'=
s =20
EA, therefore the trial court did not err in confirming the award. =20
Defendants argued that the joint venture master agreement, which  was signe=
d=20
by the tribe EDC, contained an arbitration provision  and a waiver of=20
sovereign immunity, but contended that the arbitrators  did not have=20
authority to decide whether the tribe EDC breached  the EA because the trib=
e=20
EDC did not sign the EA and was not a party  to it. The court concluded tha=
t=20
when the various documents, which  referred to each other, were read togeth=
er=20
the parties intended  that the documents be construed as one agreement.=20
Accordingly, a  breach of the EA constituted a breach of the joint venture=
=20
master  agreement, the claim was subject to arbitration, and the tribe EDC =
=20
could be held liable for the breach. Affirmed, but remanded for  modificati=
on=20
of the judgment to include post-arbitration award interest  at 12%.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Municipal
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back               to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09This  summary also appears under Real Property
=09=09
=09=09Issues:  Circuit court order compelling city to approve site plan for=
  a fast=20
food restaurant; Writ of mandamus; Superintending control;  Decision=20
involving discretionary authority; Decision based on competent,  material,=
=20
and substantial evidence; Insufficient stacking spaces  to support=20
drive-through windows; Traffic study report; Absence  of clear right to leg=
al=20
performance
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name:? Kanakry v. City of St. Clair Shores
=09=09e-Journal  Number:? 10194
=09=09Judge(s):?  Per Curiam =01) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly
=09=09
=09=09The court could  not uphold the trial court=01,s order compelling def=
endants to=20
approve  plaintiffs-property owners=01, site plan for a McDonald=01,s resta=
urant =20
because the decision to deny approval of the plan involved discretionary =
=20
authority and was supported by competent, material, and substantial =20
evidence. The trial court erred by issuing a writ of mandamus instead  of a=
n=20
order for superintending control, but this was not the basis  for reversal.=
=20
Plaintiffs=01, site plan only provided for 9 stacking  spaces, but 14 were=
=20
required for plaintiffs to have two drive-through  windows. This=20
nonconformance with the zoning ordinance alone was  sufficient for defendan=
ts=20
to deny the site plan. Defendants also  found that the deficient number of=
=20
stacking spaces would create  a traffic hazard and cause an unduly harmful=
=20
impact on the city  as a whole. Reversed and remanded.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Negligence & Intentional Tort
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back               to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Premises liability; Whether the volunteer doctrine barred p=
laintiff=01,
s  premises liability action
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
=09=09Case  Name:? James v. Albert
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10239
=09=09Judge(s):?  Taylor, Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Young, Jr., an=
d=20
Markman =20
=09=09
=09=09The  court abolished the volunteer doctrine and agreed, but for diffe=
rent =20
reasons, with the Court of Appeals that this doctrine did not bar  plaintif=
f=01,
s claim, and affirmed reversal of the trial court=01,s grant  of summary=20
disposition for defendant. The court returned this area  of the law to=20
traditional agency and tort principles, because it  believed that they will=
=20
better resolve the matters to which the  doctrine might have applied.=20
Plaintiff incurred injuries while assisting  defendant in digging a trench =
on=20
defendant=01,s property. The parties  disagreed about whether defendant inv=
ited=20
plaintiff to assist him  in digging the trench. Affirmed, and remanded.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks=20
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Litigation=20
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Alleged negligence by violating state and local law in prov=
iding =20
alcohol to minors; Jury instruction regarding the impairment defense; =20
Failure to strike plaintiff=01,s testimony regarding her percentage  of fau=
lt;=20
Failing to cure the violation of plaintiff=01,s substantial  rights when de=
fense=20
counsel improperly referred to a fee agreement  and improperly elicited=20
testimony from police officers that had  been excluded
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
=09=09Case  Name:? Piccalo v. Nix
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10215
=09=09Judge(s):?  Hood and McDonald; Dissent =01) Zahra
=09=09
=09=09The  trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the impairme=
nt =20
defense because it would be absurd to allow the defense of impairment  to a=
n=20
individual who caused or created the impairment of the injured  person. Due=
=20
to the cumulative effect of errors regarding the trial  court=01,s rulings =
there=20
was cumulative prejudice. Plaintiff, a passenger  in a van where there were=
=20
only two seats, laid or sat in the back  of the van and was injured by tire=
s=20
inside the van, when the driver,  an underage drinker, who was served alcoh=
ol=20
at defendant=01,s home,  failed to manipulate a slight curve in the gravel =
road=20
and drove  the van into a tree. The case was reversed and remanded for a ne=
w =20
trial.=20
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Premises liability; Whether plaintiff=01,s premises liabili=
ty action =20
was preempted by the dramshop act; Instructing jury with both SJI2d  19.03=
=20
and SJI2d 19.05; Additur; Application of collateral source  rule; Offset fo=
r=20
payment by a codefendant insurer
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name:? Mann v. Shusteric Enters., Inc.
=09=09e-Journal  Number:? 10188
=09=09Judge(s):?  Per Curiam =01) Kelly, White, and Wilder
=09=09
=09=09Plaintiff=01,s  premises liability action against defendant for injur=
ies=20
sustained  in a slip and fall in the parking lot of defendant=01,s bar was =
not =20
preempted by the dramshop act. Defendant=01,s service of alcohol was  only=
=20
implicated as it related to defendant=01,s knowledge of plaintiff=01,s  con=
dition=20
and whether defendant=01,s conduct in failing to inspect  or clear the park=
ing=20
lot and failing to warn plaintiff was reasonable.  The trial court did not=
=20
err in instructing the jury with both the  general duty to business invitee=
=20
instruction and the duty regarding  natural accumulation of ice and snow=20
instruction, because the instructions  are not inconsistent. The jury=01,s=
=20
verdict, denying all noneconomic  damages, was inadequate because the jury=
=20
ignored an entire category  of damages for which plaintiff produced=20
uncontroverted evidence.  The trial court abused its discretion in denying=
=20
plaintiff=01,s motion  for additur. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and=
=20
remanded.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Construction Law
=09=09
=09=09Issues:?  Retained control over the construction project; Immunity un=
der the =20
exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA; Reliance on the Supreme  Court=01,s=
=20
plurality opinion in Bitar v.Wakim; Expert=01,s testimony  on the vibration=
 from=20
a bulldozer theory; Duty to warn
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name:? Piraine v. BDP Dev.
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10192
=09=09Judge(s):?  Per Curiam- Griffin, Holbrook, Jr., and Murphy
=09=09
=09=09The court corrected  a clerical error and ordered that the final para=
graph of=20
the earlier  opinion (see e-Journal  # 10080 in the 5/3/01 edition) be=20
stricken and replaced  with the following language: =01&The lower court=01,=
s orders=20
denying summary  disposition are affirmed and the matter is remanded for=20
further  proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain=20
jurisdiction.=018  The opinion remained the same in all other respects. The=
=20
earlier  release date was vacated.=20
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Real Property
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back               to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Constitutional Law
=09=09
=09=09Issues:  The constitutionality of the Opening of Private Roads and Te=
mporary =20
Highways Act (the Private Roads Act (MCL 229.1 et seq.));  Whether the act=
=20
authorizes a taking primarily benefiting a private  rather than a public=20
purpose; Overruling Bieker v. Suttons Bay  Twp. Supervisor and McKeighan v.=
=20
Grass Lake Twp. Supervisor  II
=09=09Court:  Michigan Supreme Court
=09=09Case  Name: Tolksdorf v. Griffith
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10240
=09=09Judge(s):  Kelly, Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Taylor, Young, Jr.; Not=
=20
participating  - Markman
=09=09
=09=09The court struck  down the Private Roads Act (allowing a private land=
owner to=20
petition  a township supervisor to open a private road across another=20
landowner's  property) as providing for an unconstitutional taking under=20
art.  10, o 2 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, because it authorizes  =
a=20
taking that primarily benefits a private rather than a public  purpose.=20
Plaintiffs owned landlocked property and defendants owned  a neighboring=20
parcel. Defendants refused plaintiffs' requests seeking  a paved road acros=
s=20
their parcel and an easement for utility lines.  Plaintiffs sued requesting=
 a=20
writ of mandamus compelling the township  supervisor to proceed under the=
=20
act. The trial court ruled against  plaintiffs and the Court of Appeals fou=
nd=20
error in the refusal to  issue the writ. The court concluded that since the=
=20
act gives individuals  a permanent and continuous right to pass over=20
another's property,  it allowed a permanent physical occupation of private=
=20
property by  means of government action, and was a taking. The taking=20
authorized  by the act appeared to merely be an attempt by a private entity=
 =20
to use the state's powers to acquire what it could not get through  arms'=
=20
length negotiations with defendants, and the primary benefit  inured to the=
=20
landlocked private owners, rather than the public.  Reversed and the trial=
=20
court's ruling for defendants was reinstated.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09Issues:  Whether plaintiff's prior recorded judgment lien had priorit=
y  over=20
defendants' subsequent mortgage interest
=09=09Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
=09=09Case  Name: Graves v. American Acceptance Mortgage Corp.
=09=09e-Journal  Number: 10216
=09=09Judge(s):  Gage, Sawyer, and Jansen
=09=09
=09=09Since the subsequent  mortgage constituted a purchase money mortgage,=
 which=20
takes priority  over earlier creditors' interests even though the earlier=
=20
interest  was duly recorded, the trial court erred in concluding that=20
plaintiff's  earlier recorded judgment lien had priority over defendants'=
=20
mortgage  interest. The divorce judgment granted plaintiff a lien on the=20
property  to the extent of Diaz' (her ex-husband) then existing equitable =
=20
title interest in the property as the land contract vendee. The  mortgage=
=20
Diaz granted American Acceptance constituted a purchase  money mortgage=20
because Diaz, who had defaulted on the land contract  payments, utilized th=
e=20
mortgage proceeds to obtain legal title to  the property by paying off the=
=20
land contract vendors. Accordingly,  notwithstanding that plaintiff filed h=
er=20
judgment lien before the  execution of the Diaz mortgage, the purchase mone=
y=20
mortgage by which  Diaz secured legal title to the property, had priority=
=20
over plaintiff's  judgment lien which arose against Diaz prior to his=20
acquisition  of title to the real estate. The trial court failed to accord=
=20
defendants'  purchase money mortgage interest the priority to which it was=
=20
entitled  by law. Reversed and remanded.=20
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09This summary  also appears under Municipal
=09=09
=09=09Issues:  Circuit court order compelling city to approve site plan for=
  a fast=20
food restaurant; Writ of mandamus; Superintending control;  Decision=20
involving discretionary authority; Decision based on competent,  material,=
=20
and substantial evidence; Insufficient stacking spaces  to support=20
drive-through windows; Traffic study report; Absence  of clear right to leg=
al=20
performance
=09=09Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
=09=09Case  Name:? Kanakry v. City of St. Clair Shores
=09=09e-Journal  Number:? 10194
=09=09Judge(s):?  Per Curiam =01) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly
=09=09
=09=09The court could  not uphold the trial court=01,s order compelling def=
endants to=20
approve  plaintiffs-property owners=01, site plan for a McDonald=01,s resta=
urant =20
because the decision to deny approval of the plan involved discretionary =
=20
authority and was supported by competent, material, and substantial =20
evidence. The trial court erred by issuing a writ of mandamus instead  of a=
n=20
order for superintending control, but this was not the basis  for reversal.=
=20
Plaintiffs=01, site plan only provided for 9 stacking  spaces, but 14 were=
=20
required for plaintiffs to have two drive-through  windows. This=20
nonconformance with the zoning ordinance alone was  sufficient for defendan=
ts=20
to deny the site plan. Defendants also  found that the deficient number of=
=20
stacking spaces would create  a traffic hazard and cause an unduly harmful=
=20
impact on the city  as a whole. Reversed and remanded.
=09=09
=09=09Full  Text Opinion
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09fields  of practice listings
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09ADR/Arbitration/Mediation
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09ASHER N.  TILCHIN, a  member of the American College of Civil Trial M=
ediators=20
and Michigan  Arbitration and Mediation Association provides mediation for=
=20
pre,  early, and matured lawsuits. He has been a successful mediator since =
=20
1991. Tilchin also provides arbitration services as a single or  multi-pane=
l=20
arbitrator. Cases involving construction, real estate,  commercial=20
transactions, and legal malpractice invited. Asher N.  Tilchin, 31731=20
Northwestern Hwy., Suite 106, Farmington Hills, MI  48334, (248)855-0995 or=
=20
Fax (248) 855-0850, e-mail antilchin@aol.com
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Administrative  Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09JAMES R. VIVENTI, James R Viventi PLLC, 3670 Powderhorn  Drive, Okemo=
s, MI=20
48864-5924, Phone: (517) 381-0670, FAX: (517)  381-0671.=20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Adoption
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09MONICA FARRIS LINKNER, Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz,  PC, 200=
0 Town=20
Center, Suite 900, Southfield, MI 48075-1100, Phone:  (248) 746-4011, FAX:=
=20
(248) 936-1976, e-mail: mlinkner@s4online.com. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Alternative  Dispute Resolution
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09DONNA CRAIG, Donna Craig & Associates PLC, 999 Haynes Street,  Suite =
245,=20
Birmingham, MI 48009, Phone: (248) 682-7750, FAX: (248)  682-2376, e-mail:=
=20
craigassoc@earthlink.net.  Visit www.adr-resource.com
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Antitrust/Advertising/Trade  Regulation
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09DAVID G.  CHARDAVOYNE specializes  in the regulation of business comp=
etition,=20
including: antitrust  law, unfair competition, and the regulation of=20
advertising, labeling,  and other trade practices. Former Chairperson of=20
State Bar antitrust  and trade regulation section, more than 15 years'=20
experience in  this field. Will consult regarding antitrust issues=20
(monopolies,  mergers, price fixing, exclusive dealing, tying arrangements,=
=20
price  discrimination, dealer termination, market allocation); premerger =
=20
notice filings under Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; discussions with State  and=20
Federal regulatory agencies (FTC, Justice Department, Attorney  General);=
=20
compliance with laws regulating advertising (substantiation  of claims,=20
product labels, consumer price displays); and all other  matters relating t=
o=20
business competition. David G. Chardavoyne,  26755 La Muera Ave., Farmingto=
n=20
Hills, MI 48334-4613, (248) 477-6308,  e-mail chardavoyne@aol.com
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Appeals
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09LAURIE S. LONGO, 214 South Main, Suite 210, Ann Arbor, MI  48104-2122=
, Phone:=20
(734) 913-5619, e-mail: 42203@msn.com.  Visit http://michiganappeals.com. =
=20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Appellate  Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09SAFFORD & BAKER, PLLC, 40900 Woodward Avenue, Suite 110, Bloomfield  =
Hills,=20
MI 48304, Phone: (248) 646-9100, FAX: (248) 646-9102. Visit =20
www.saffordbaker.com
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Automobile  Warranty Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09LIBLANG  & ASSOCIATES:  Specializing in "Lemon Law", UCC, Magnuson-Mo=
ss,=20
Odometer  Fraud and Consumer Protection Act. Available for trials,=20
consultations  or referrals. Cases accepted statewide. Over 17 years and=20
5,000  cases. Michigan's most experienced lemon law attorneys, Dani K. =20
Liblang and Scott J. Sinkwitts. Please call (248) 540-9270 or e-mail  =20
NoLemons@aol.com=20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Business  & Taxation
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09LAW OFFICES  OF RALPH W. PEZDA.  Oakland County practitioner with an =
LL.M.=20
degree in taxation from  New York University will assist your clients or fi=
rm=20
with taxation,  business, interdisciplinary, and white collar criminal=20
matters.  Referrals paid. 27700 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 411, Southfield,  =
MI=20
48034. (248) 352-5632. E-mail address: rwp@cdlcorp.com
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Construction  Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09JOHN V.  TOCCO, attorney,  construction engineer, and civil engineeri=
ng=20
professor, with over  twenty years experience in the construction industry,=
=20
provides mediation  and arbitration services for all construction matters.=
=20
Also provides  litigation support and claims analysis. Cases accepted=20
statewide.  Call (313) 406-2040 for CV, or review Profile at=20
www.johntocco.com  E-mail john@johntocco.com
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Copyrights
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09CAROL R. SHEPHERD, Arborlaw Associates, PLLC, 320 S Main  St, PO Box =
8403,=20
Ann Arbor, MI 48107-8403, Phone: (734) 668-4646,  FAX: (734) 822-4646,=20
e-mail: shepherd@arborlaw.com. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Criminal  Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09F. RANDALL KARFONTA, Attorney @ Law, 113 North Main, PO  Box 565, Lel=
and, MI=20
49654, Phone: (231) 256-2200. Visit http://www.leelanau.com  or=20
http://www.leelanau.com/professional/karfonta. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09RAYMOND A. CASSAR, Law Offices of Raymond A. Cassar, 30665  Northwest=
ern Hwy,=20
Suite 100, Farmington Hills, MI 48334, Phone: (248)  855-0911, FAX: (248)=
=20
855-9523, e-mail: rcassar@aol.com.  Additional offices located in Oakland=
=20
County (248) 855-0911, and Wayne  County (313) 278-8811. Visit=20
www.crimlawattorney.com. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09TALPOS & ARNOLD PC, 2855 Coolidge Road, Suite 109, Troy, MI  48084-32=
15,=20
Phone: (248) 643-4515, FAX: (248) 643-4797, e-mail: jctalpos@aol.com.  Visi=
t=20
www.Mich-Lawyer.com. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Environmental  Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09DEAN & FULKERSON, PC, Richard A. Barr, rbarr@dflaw.com  or James K. O=
'Brien,=20
jobrien@dflaw.com,  801 W Big Beaver, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084-4767, Phone=
:=20
(248) 362-1300,  FAX: (248) 362-1358.=20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Family  Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09JOHN G. MAKRIS, 802 E Big Beaver Rd, Troy, MI 48083-1404,  Phone: (24=
8)=20
528-1811, FAX: (248) 524-0973, e-mail: jgmakris@altavista.com. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Federal  False Claims (Qui Tam) Actions
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09HaronDAVID  HARON represents  whistleblowers in civil false claims ac=
tions=20
and works with referring  attorneys nationwide who specialize in employment=
=20
law and other  fields. Under the federal False Claims Act, private=20
individuals  with knowledge of fraud against federal programs can file suit=
=20
on  behalf of the United States and receive a substantial share of any =20
recovery. Representing such claimants, Mr. Haron has recovered millions  of=
=20
dollars in Medicare and Medicaid funds that had been fraudulently  obtained=
=20
by health-care providers, primarily through abusive billing  practices. To=
=20
learn more, visit his qui tam web site at www.QuiTamOnline.com  or contact=
=20
him directly by e-mail at dharon@fsh-law.com  or phone (248) 952-0400 at=20
Frank, Stefani, Haron & Hall  in Troy http://www.fsh-law.com/
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Health  Law=20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09KENNETH R. MARCUS, representing provider organizations and  professio=
nals=20
since 1984 in Blue Cross/Medicaid/Medicare Audit Defense,  Payment Appeals,=
=20
Stark Act Compliance, Managed Care Contracting,  Physician Transactions,=20
Corporate Law. I work collaboratively with  general counsel. Phone=20
888.865.9955, fax: 248.865.9956, e-mail:  krmarcus@aol.com. Visit=20
www.lawyers.com/kenmarcus.
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks            =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Hospital  & Medical Negligence
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09THE  LAW OFFICES OF JOHN S. HONE, P.C., representing victims  of hosp=
ital and=20
medical negligence resulting in serious injury,  permanent cognitive and=20
physical disability and wrongful death.  Millions won, available for=20
consultation and referral, cases accepted  statewide. Phone Hone: (248)=20
888-7585; Toll Free: 888-HMO-1010;  Fax: (248) 473-8895; E-mail to=20
mmhmolawsuit@aol.com
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Immigration  and Naturalization
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09NAHIL PETER ANTONE, N. Peter Antone, PC, 16445 West Twelve  Mile Road=
, Suite=20
100, Southfield, MI 48076, Phone: (248) 559-0707,  FAX: (248) 559-0790,=20
e-mail: Peter@Antone.com.  Visit http://Antone.com. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09ROGER R. RATHI, Attorney at Law, 29777 Telegraph Road, Suite  2500,=
=20
Southfield, MI 48034, Phone: (248) 539-8421, FAX: (248) 353-2786,  e-mail:=
=20
rrathi@yahoo.com. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09STEVEN N. GARMO, Law Offices of Garmo & Garmo, 28230 Orchard  Lake Ro=
ad,=20
Suite 201, Farmington Hills, MI 48334, Phone: (248) 626-0050,  FAX: (248)=
=20
626-0051, e-mail: steve@garmo.com.  Visit: www.garmo.com. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Immigration  Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09MARSHAL  E. HYMAN & ASSOCIATES. All  aspects of immigration law inclu=
ding=20
employment-based immigration  for professionals and skilled workers. Labor=
=20
certifications. Family-based  immigration. Immigration from Canada. Politic=
al=20
asylum, all waivers  and appeals. Corporate transfers for multinational=20
employees. Representation  in Immigration courts and Federal courts since=
=20
1981. 3250 West Big  Beaver, Suite 529, Troy, MI 48084. (248) 643-0642, Fax=
:=20
(248) 643-0798.  E-mail: marshalhyman@msu.com
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Insurance  Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09STUART A. SKLAR, Fabian, Sklar & Davis, PC, 31800 Northwestern  Hwy, =
Suite=20
205, Farmington Hills, MI 48334, Phone: (248) 855-2110,  FAX: (248) 855-020=
9.=20
Additional office located in West Michigan  (616) 451-9900, e-mail:=20
ssklar-firelaw@tir.com. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Intellectual  Property Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09GIFFORD, KRASS, GROH, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C.,  280 Nort=
h Old=20
Woodward, Suite 400, Birmingham, MI 48009-5392, Phone:  (248) 647-6000, FAX=
:=20
(248) 647-5210, e-mail: info@patlaw.com. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, PLLC, Bloomfield Hills (248) 594-0600;  Gran=
d Rapids=20
(616) 742-3500; Washington, DC (202) 955-3750; Englewood,  CO (303) 991-120=
0.=20
Visit www.intelprop.com. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Labor  & Employment
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09THE LAW  OFFICE of  Gregory T. Gibbs  is an AV rated firm with years =
of=20
experience in employment law advice  and litigation. We can answer question=
s=20
about: handbooks, sexual  harassment, wrongful discharge, discrimination,=
=20
family medical leave,  collective bargaining, wage-hour issues or any other=
=20
employment  related matter under state or federal law. We work with you and=
 =20
your clients under referral fee arrangements. 328 S. Saginaw St.,  Ste. 900=
1,=20
Flint, MI 48502. (810) 239-9470, fax (810) 235-2468,  e-mail:=20
bakerlak@tir.com
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09DAVID D. KOHL, 39500 Orchard Hill Place, Suite 110, Novi, MI  48375, =
Phone:=20
(248) 347-6666, FAX: (248) 348-8707, e-mail: daviddkohl@juno.com. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Litigation
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09FINK, ZAUSMER & KAUFMAN, PC, 31700 Middlebelt Rd #150, Farmington  Hi=
lls, MI=20
48334, Phone: (248) 851-4111, FAX: (248) 851-0100. Additional  offices=20
located in Detroit (313) 963-3873, and Lansing (517) 374-2735.  Visit=20
http://www.lawsite.com =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09STEPHEN K. VALENTINE, JR, Valentine & Associates, 5767 West  Maple Ro=
ad.=20
Suite 400, West Bloomfield, MI 48322, Phone: (248) 851-3010,  FAX: (248)=20
851-1553. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Medical  Malpractice
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09WANT A SECOND  OPINION ON A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE? The  law office=
s of=20
Anthony M. Malizia, P.C., is a statewide firm that  handles only medical=20
malpractice cases. I am Martindale-Hubbell  "AV-rated." I sit as a=20
plaintiff's medical malpractice  mediator. I have 20 years experience in th=
e=20
review and development  of these cases, many trials to jury verdict, and ma=
ny=20
more settlements.  Over the years, upwards of 20% of my case inventory has=
=20
consisted  of meritorious cases initially rejected by others, including=20
"name  firms." Oftentimes these cases were subjected to incomplete  analysi=
s=20
because of the firm's lack of in-depth, medico-legal background.  Sometimes=
=20
medical sleuthing or a new perspective was required. Send  me your rejected=
=20
case for a "de novo" review. We also  welcome the referral of "new" cases.=
=20
Anthony M. Malizia,  P.C., 37000 Grand River, Suite 340, Farmington Hills, =
MI=20
48335,  1-800-555-5107 or e-mail: amlmalizia@aol.com
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Real  Estate
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09BRAD B. ALDRICH, Law Offices of Brad B. Aldrich, PLLC, 645  Griswold,=
 Suite=20
3261, Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: (313) 965-9490,  FAX: (313) 965-9478, e-mai=
l=20
belmontald@aol.com.
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Special  Education Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09LAW OFFICES  OF MARSHA LYNN TUCK with  20 years experience,=20
Martindale-Hubbell =0F"AV-rated,=0F" representing  students with and withou=
t=20
disabilities in suspension, expulsion,  integration, inclusion, and similar=
=20
cases. Marsha Lynn Tuck, 30700  Telegraph Road, Suite 4646, Bingham Farms, =
MI=20
48025. (248) 585-9338.
=09=09
=09=09Back  to Quicklinks  =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Tax  Litigation & Disputes
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09JOSEPH FALCONE  is  available to assist attorneys with Federal and St=
ate=20
Civil and Criminal  Tax Litigation and Dispute matters. Joseph Falcone, a=
=20
former IRS  Detroit District Counsel Trial Attorney, has handled thousands=
=20
of  tax matters and has 27 years experience working in the specialized  are=
a=20
of Tax Litigation and Disputes. If you require assistance with  a major tax=
=20
dispute, wish to refer a matter, or just need a few  minutes consultation=
=20
over the phone with your specific problem or  question, telephone or e-mail=
=20
us jf@lawyer.com.  Visit our website at www.lawyers.com/falconerolfe. =20
Falcone & Rolfe, P.C., 3000 Town Center, Suite 2370, Southfield,  MI 48075.=
=20
(248) 357 6610. Fax (248) 357-6613.
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Transportation  Law
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09PAUL M. ROSS, P.C., 2840 East Grand River Avenue, Suite  1, East Lans=
ing, MI=20
48823-4911, Phone: (517) 337-7677, FAX: (517)  332-9361, e-mail:=20
pross1412@aol.com. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Worker's  Compensation
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09JOHN M. H ULRICH, IV, Crawforth Mcmanus Tenbrunsel & Ulrich,  999 Hay=
nes=20
Street, Suite 245, Birmingham, MI 48009-6702, Toll-free:  (800) 424-4878,=
=20
Phone: (248) 540-1270, FAX: (248) 540-3925.=20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09To receive information  on how to place a Fields of Practice listing,=
 contact=20
Stacy  Sage or see Advertising  Opportunities on our website. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09classified  advertising
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Confidential  Records Destruction
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09SHRED-IT.  Confidentiality, Privacy and Document Security are vital i=
n=20
today's  environment. SHRED-IT provides solutions for secure destruction  o=
f=20
confidential, sensitive and proprietary information, utilizing  a unique,=
=20
mobile, ON-SITE document destruction system. Call 1-800-69-SHRED  or=20
1-800-697-4733. E-mail  Eastern Michigan; e-mail  Out state Michigan or vis=
it=20
 our website
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Expert  Witness=0F-Building
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09EXPERT WITNESS  services  for construction issues. Our cases include =
issues=20
of faulty construction,  failure to disclose, personal injury and ADA. Mr.=
=20
Tyson is a member  of many model code organizations including BOCA, ICBO,=
=20
NFPA and  ASTM. Our attorney clients represent plaintiffs and defendants. =
=20
Rendering independent and unbiased opinions. Ortonville, MI. Phone  (248)=
=20
627-6859.
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09RESIDENTIAL  CONSTRUCTION--ABR  Construction Company, Inc. offering e=
xpertise=20
in all phases of residential  construction related to workmanship, cost,=20
time, structural analysis,  civil analysis, and other related problems.=20
Contact Jack W. Belkin  member BOCA, ASHI, Bldg. Spec. Inc. licensed builde=
r=20
and real estate  broker. (248) 443-4063, cell (248) 867-5042 and fax (248)=
=20
443-4065,  e-mail jwbelkin@mich.com   =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Expert  Witness=0F-Economics Consulting
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09ECONOMIC LOSS CALCULATION and litigation support in personal  injury,=
=20
wrongful death and wrongful discharge cases. Over 25 years  experience=20
including Chief Economist for the Michigan Department  of Commerce. John F.=
=20
Hanieski, Ph.D., Economics Consulting Services,  LLC, 8583 W. Eaton Hwy.,=
=20
Grand Ledge, MI 48837. (517) 627-6968.  E-mail: hanieski.john@acd.net =20
website: http://userdata.acd.net/hanieski.john
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Expert  Witness=0F-Forensic & Environmental Geologist
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09FORENSIC  and ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGIST=01*Certified Professional Geolo=
gist;  29=20
years investigating soil and water issues for government and  private=20
sectors; deposition and trial experience applicable to cases  involving=20
insurance claims, construction accidents, environmental  contamination,=20
wetlands, property transactions, malpractice, murder,  rape, etc. For more=
=20
information, contact Robert A. Hayes, (517)  655-8348, or=20
www.geoforensics.com
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Expert  Witness=0F-Legal Malpractice
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09LEGAL MALPRACTICE=0F-EXPERT  EVALUATION, pre-  and post-litigation an=
alysis,=20
written opinions, deposition and trial  testimony in plaintiff originated o=
r=20
defendant defended legal malpractice  cases that involve Real Estate and=20
Commercial Transactions and Civil  Litigation. 18 years' experience as lega=
l=20
malpractice expert. Asher  N. Tilchin, Tilchin, Hall & Reynolds P.C., 31731=
=20
Northwestern  Hwy., Suite 106, Farmington Hills, MI 48334. (248) 855-0995,=
=20
fax  (248) 855-0850. E-mail antilchin@aol.com
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Lawsuit  Financials
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09DO MONEY  PROBLEMS caused  by disability force some of your clients t=
o settle=20
strong, valuable  cases for pennies on the dollar? A Lawsuit Financial,=20
L.L.C. contingent  advance allows you time to obtain the maximum dollar=20
possible for  your client's case. Lawsuit Financial, L.L.C., 29777 Telegrap=
h=20
Road,  Suite 1310, Southfield, MI 48034. Call (248) 948-1800 or (877)=20
377-SUIT.
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Legal  Research
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09OPEN online  offers instant and cost effective access to public recor=
ds.=20
Select  from many sources of criminal data, verify social security numbers,=
 =20
confirm driving records, find addresses, UCC and incorporation filings,  re=
al=20
property records, bankruptcies, liens and judgments. For information  call=
=20
800-935-OPEN (6736), email info@openonline.com,  or visit www.openonline.co=
m
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Office  Space Available
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09SOUTHFIELD  LAW OFFICE FOR RENT=0F-Reception, conference, kitchen, ph=
otocopier, =20
fax, file room; secretary to share. Central location near all major =20
expressways for quick access for clientele and courts in the tri-county =20
area. Attractive and professional. Call Sandra Maison at (248) 355-9400.  =
=20
Ddelong@thompsonmorello.com
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Positions  Available
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09DAWDA, MANN, MULCAHY & SADLER a full-service Bloomfield  Hills firm, =
with 25=20
attorneys and a national client base, is seeking  a real estate/corporate=
=20
transactional attorney. Qualified candidates  must have 3-5 years experienc=
e=20
with strong academic credentials.  Send resume and references to Director o=
f=20
Administration, 39533  Woodward Avenue, Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, MI=20
48304.=20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09 DAWDA, MANN, MULCAHY & SADLER a full-service Bloomfield Hills  firm,=
 with 25=20
attorneys and a national client base, is seeking a real  estate/corporate=
=20
transactional paralegal. Qualified candidates must  have 3-5 years experien=
ce=20
with strong academic credentials. Send resume  and references to Director o=
f=20
Administration, 39533 Woodward Avenue,  Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, MI=20
48304. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09ESTABLISHED  MID-SIZED AV Rated Bloomfield Hills litigation firm=20
representing  businesses and insurance companies, seeks attorney with 0-3=
=20
years  experience. Litigation experience helpful. Please direct resumes to =
=20
Linda Pillsworth via e-mail: lpillsworth@kallashenk.com or, Facsimile:  (24=
8)=20
335-9889, or via regular mail: 43902 Woodward Avenue, Suite  200, Bloomfiel=
d=20
Hills, MI 48302. NO TELEPHONE CALLS PLEASE. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR=0F-The  Grand Rapids Bar Association is soliciting=
=20
applications for the position  of Executive Director. The GRBA is a volunta=
ry=20
local bar with 1,500  members, a full-time staff of 7, one-half-time positi=
on=20
and 8 part-time  volunteers. The Executive Director is the chief operating=
=20
officer.  The GRBA includes a Lawyer Referral Service, which will become th=
e =20
centerpiece for a new Legal Assistance Center in September 2001. The  GRBA=
=20
has a combined operating budget of $850,000. The Executive Director  also=
=20
oversees, with a committee and the board, the Grand Rapids Bar  Foundation=
=20
with assets of $1 million. The Executive Director is responsible  to a=20
seventeen member Board in accord with policies and procedures  adopted by t=
he=20
Board. The successful candidate will be a seasoned  executive with a=20
demonstrated record of achieving positive results,  including experience in=
=20
the area of fund development. The Executive  Director will exhibit a high=
=20
level of integrity with superior management,  organizational, budgeting,=20
personnel, and interpersonal communication  skills. The GRBA offers a=20
competitive salary and benefits package.  Applicants are encouraged to subm=
it=20
a letter of interest, current  resume, references, and salary requirements =
to=20
Executive Director  Search Committee, c/o Sherrie Parmelee, Smith, Haughey,=
=20
Rice &  Roegge, Calder Plaza Bldg., 250 Monroe NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503, =
=20
(616) 458-2385, sparmlee@shrr.com  The Grand Rapids Bar Association is an=
=20
Equal Opportunity Employer.   =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09IMMEDIATE OPENING--Lague,  Newman & Irish is seeking an associate wit=
h 1 - 2=20
years experience.  Candidates must have strong academic credentials and=20
excellent writing  abilities. Send cover letter, resume, and transcripts to=
=20
Eric Gielow,  Lague, Newman & Irish, P.O. Box 389, Muskegon, MI 49443 (or=
=20
ergielow@lnilaw.com).   =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09INSURANCE  CLAIMS attorney needed for growing company in pleasant, sm=
all =20
town environment. 3-5 years experience in claims and/or litigation =20
supervision with a property/casualty insurance company or insurance  defens=
e=20
firm mandatory. Member of the State Bar of Michigan required.  Send resume =
to=20
jhutchins@hastingsmutual.com  or mail to Hastings Mutual Insurance Co., Att=
n:=20
Human Resources, 404  E. Woodlawn Avenue, Hastings, MI 49058. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09MICHIGAN MIGRANT LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT, INC., an established  migr=
ant=20
legal services program, seeks an Executive Director. Ideal  candidate has=
=20
five years experience in farmworker law, and some administrative  experienc=
e.=20
MMLAP is a statewide program that brings high impact cases  in state and=20
federal courts. Candidate must be, or promptly become,  licensed to practic=
e=20
in Michigan, and must be bi-lingual (English/Spanish).  Salary $65,000-DOE,=
=20
excellent benefits. Applications accepted through  June 15, 2001. MMLAP is =
an=20
EOE. Send resume to: Richard Kessler, Search  Committee, c/o MMLAP, 648=20
Monroe, N.W., Suite 318, Grand Rapids, MI  49504. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09PART-TIME  LAWYER FOR HARLEY-DAVIDSON MICHIGAN, INC.=01*Lawyer needed=
 (15  - 20=20
hrs/wk) at busy domestic and international Fortune 500 corporate  trademark=
=20
law practice in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Strong analytical and  writing skills=
=20
and excellent attention to detail are required. This  is a year-round=20
position. Please do not apply unless you have an interest  in practicing=20
trademark law. No telephone calls, please. Send your  resume to: Ann Jackso=
n,=20
Harley-Davidson Michigan, Inc., 315 W. Huron  Street, Suite 400, Ann Arbor,=
=20
Michigan 48103. =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09RESPONSIBILITES  of this person are to provide advice to various depa=
rtments.=20
Draft,  review and negotiate agreements, debt instruments, and guaranties =
=20
for domestic and international business units. Review all advertising  for=
=20
compliance with FTC regulations, trademark usage and adherence  to corporat=
e=20
policies. Defend employment related legal actions and  review and advise on=
=20
hiring practices and procedures. Minimum qualifications  are seven years=20
experience from a law firm and/or a major corporation  with relevant practi=
ce=20
experience. Plus strong background with employment  law. J.D. from a=20
accredited law school, admitted to practice law in  Michigan or other U.S.=
=20
jurisdiction. Please send resume to Ashleys@dominos.com  or fax to=20
734-930-4350. Salary is 110K.Legal Department, Domino's  Pizza, 30 Frank=20
Lloyd Wright Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.  =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09UNIVERSITY  OF MICHIGAN=01*The Office of the Vice  President and Gene=
ral Counsel=20
of the University of Michigan is seeking  exceptionally qualified applicant=
s=20
for an attorney who will provide  advice and counsel on health law matters =
in=20
the areas of managed care,  reimbursement, research and privacy/security. T=
he=20
position requires  experience in the above-noted areas. Candidates with=20
strong business  acumen-gained through in-house experience or by working=20
closely with  business clients-will be preferred. Minimum qualifications=20
include  excellent academic credentials, a law degree from an accredited la=
w =20
school, membership in the Michigan bar or eligibility for admission  based =
on=20
reciprocity, and at least 5 years of relevant experience.  The salary will =
be=20
commensurate with the selected candidate's experience  and employment in th=
e=20
public section. Applications will be accepted  until the position if filled=
,=20
but applications should be submitted  promptly to ensure full consideration=
.=20
To apply, please send a cover  letter and resume to: Office of the Vice=20
President and General Counsel,  Attention: HEALTH, 4010 Fleming=20
Administration Building, Ann Arbor,  Michigan 48109-1340. The University of=
=20
Michigan is an equal opportunity,  affirmative action employer.=20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09UNIVERSITY  OF MICHIGAN--The  Office of the Vice President and Genera=
l=20
Counsel of the University  of Michigan is seeking exceptionally qualified=
=20
applicants for an attorney  who will take primary responsibility for=20
coordinating the University's  litigation in the medical malpractice area.=
=20
The successful candidate  will engage and supervise outside counsel in=20
medical malpractice and  will provide advice and representation in other=20
areas of health care  law. This position will work closely with the senior=
=20
leadership of  the University Health System, including the Chief of Staff f=
or=20
Clinical  Affairs and the Director of the Medical Center Risk Management=20
Office,  other attorneys in the Office of the Vice President and General=20
Counsel,  and with individual members of the medical staff. The successful=
=20
candidate  will draft and review policies; serve on University committees;=
=20
conduct  educational programs on legal topics for the University community,=
 =20
and carry out other duties as assigned. Experience providing legal  service=
s=20
for a university affiliated, or similar, health care system  is desired. A=
=20
law degree from an NALS accredited law school, membership  or eligibility f=
or=20
membership in the State Bar of Michigan, at least  five years litigation=20
experience with an emphasis on medical malpractice,  reasonable experience =
in=20
health care law are required. Applications  will be accepted until the=20
position is filled, but applications should  be submitted promptly to ensur=
e=20
full consideration. To apply, please  send a cover letter and resume to:=20
Office of the Vice President and  General Counsel, Attention: MED MAL, 4010=
=20
Fleming Administration Building,  Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1340. The=20
University of Michigan is an equal  opportunity, affirmative action employe=
r.=20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Services
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09SOUTH FLORIDA  ATTORNEY available for consultations, all legal and bu=
siness =20
matters, referrals, or local counsel, litigation and estates. Contact  Mark=
=20
M. Berkley, 385-C West 49th Street, Hialeah (Miami) Florida  33012, telepho=
ne=20
305.556.2626. Member of the State Bar of Michigan  for 25 years and the=20
Florida Bar for 14 years.
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks              =20
=09=09
=09=09To receive information  on how to place a classified advertisement, c=
ontact=20
Stacy  Sage =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09news  & moves
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09  bar events=20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09archived  e-Journals=20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Case  Summary Cumulative Index
=09=09
=09=09Thursday, May  10  e-Journal =20
=09=09
=09=09Friday, May  11 e-Journal
=09=09
=09=09Monday, May  14 e-Journal
=09=09
=09=09Tuesday, May  15 e-Journal
=09=09
=09=09Wednesday,  May 16 e-Journal
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09contacts
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09For information  on classified advertising, contact Stacy Sage
=09=09
=09=09For information  on fields of practice listings, contact Stacy  Sage
=09=09
=09=09For unsubscribe  and change of address issues, contact: Carrie  Picke=
tt
=09=09
=09=09To list bar  event information, send your information to Carrie  Pick=
ett
=09=09
=09=09Editorial  comments may be sent to Nancy  Brown
=09=09
=09=09Technical  questions may be sent to e-journal-tech@michbar.org
=09=09
=09=09Who  Does What at the State Bar =20
=09=09
=09=09Back to Quicklinks =20
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09To receive the  text-only version, please send an e-mail to=20
lyris@lists.michbar.org In  the body, type: subscribe ejournal-text. To=20
unsubscribe from the html  version, type: unsubscribe ejournal on the next=
=20
line. You may re-subscribe  or unsubscribe at any time. =20

State Bar of  Michigan Home
Copyright , 2001, State Bar of Michigan =20
---
You are currently subscribed to ejournal as: [mark.e.haedicke@enron.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to=20
leave-ejournal-255481W@lists.michbar.org