Clear

1689 search results for query *


Summary: (2008) MICHIGAN ELECTRICAL EMPLOEES PENSION FUND, Michigan Electrical Employees Health Plan, National Electrical Benefit Fund, National Electrical Annuity Fund, Lansing Electrical Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee Trust, and Lansing Labor-Management Cooperation Fund, Plaintiffs, v. ENCOMPASS ELECTRIC & DATA, INC.; Encompass Electric & Telecom, Inc.; James K. Price, Jr., both individually and d/b/a Encompass Electric & Data, Inc.; and Kevin Glanz, both individually and d/b/a Encompass E......read more.


Summary: 384 F. Supp. Meanwhile, at the front door, city officer Fowler testified he pounded twice on the door, shouted "police officers," looked in the door window and saw no one; heard someone from the front or side say "we're going in the side;" then he kicked in the oak door and confronted Lena Doering, who was at that time in the living room. 2d 828 (1968); United States v. Bustamante-Gamez, 488 F.2d 4, 9 (9th Cir. United States v. Pratter, 465 F.2d 227, 230 (1972). 488 F.2d at 9. In United States v......read more.


Summary: 955 F. Supp. Before the Court is Defendants' motion for reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and Order dated September 27, 1996, Two Men and a Truck/Int'l Inc. v. Two Men and a Truck/Kalamazoo, Inc., 949 F. Supp. [3] Based on this Court's analysis of relevant Sixth Circuit and Michigan Supreme Court law, this Court finds the dissent in Martino to reflect the way the Michigan Supreme Court would apply the remedy of rescission to violations of the MFIL: The majority also states that the MFIL gi......read more.


Summary: 337 F. Supp. In the face of defendant's contention that the execution of this note took place in Illinois and, therefore, the court lacks a proper basis for personal jurisdiction, plaintiff alleges that the execution of the note was the final act of a much larger Michigan transaction. Colorado: Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. Superior Court In and For City and County of Denver (1968), 167 Colo. 456, 448 P.2d 783; Illinois: Koplin v. Thomas, Haab and Botts (1966), 73 Ill.App.2d 242, 219 N.E.2d 646; Zi......read more.


Summary: 140 F. Supp. It is clear that the above-mentioned prior action, No. 2596, instituted by the Hanleys against the Fireman's company December 29, 1954, involved the question of the validity of the insurance policy issued to them; the question as to whether their loss and the damages to their dwelling were covered by the policy and endorsements; and also the question as to the amount of their loss and damages. On June 14, 1955, the Fireman's company (defendant in prior action No. 2596) began the pre......read more.


Summary: 187 F. Supp. 187 F. Supp. Section 1292(b) as amended relating to permissible appeals from interlocutory orders of United States district courts provides as follows: "When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate term......read more.


Summary: 36 F. Supp. Defendant was a resident of the State of Illinois at the time the contracts hereinafter referred to were entered into, but since January 1, 1939, has been and, at the time of the commencement of this suit, was a resident of the State of Michigan. The evidence is not clear and convincing that at the time defendant entered the new employment the Kalamazoo Stove & Furnace Company was or was about to become a client of plaintiff within the meaning of the agreement of May 10, 1937, and if......read more.


Summary: 676 F. Supp. Alternatively, plaintiff seeks a declaration that the no-fault carrier, Nationwide, is responsible for Morgan's medical bills under the PIP coverage of the no-fault policy, to the extent that plaintiff is required to reimburse the Plan for Morgan's medical expenses. Plaintiff will be granted a summary judgment against Nationwide, the no-fault insurer, declaring Nationwide to be responsible for covering plaintiff's medical expenses under the PIP coverage of the no-fault policy, to th......read more.


Summary: 488 F. Supp. Michigan Paytel Joint Venture v. City of Detroit, 287 F.3d 527, 533 (6th Cir.2002) (quoting Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir.1987)). Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548; Mulhall v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 543, 550 (6th Cir.2002). Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., Inc., 879 F.2d 1304, 1310 (6th Cir.1989) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. Daniels v. Woodside, 396 F.3d 730, 734 (6th Cir.2005) (q......read more.


Summary: 8 F. Supp. Co., 40 F.3d 796, 800 (6th Cir.1994) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. Plaintiff and Defendant agree that the applicable statute of limitations is six months pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 160(b) and the holding of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in McCreedy v. Local Union No. 971, UAW, 809 F.2d 1232, 1237 (6th Cir. McCreedy, 809 F.2d at 1236; International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 108 F.3d......read more.


Summary: 940 F. Supp. Stephen D. Turner, Law, Weathers & Richardson, Grand Rapids, MI, Joe A. Sutherland, Gardner, Carton & Douglas, Chicago, IL, for Perrigo Company, Michael J. Jandernoa, Lonnie L. Smith, M. James Gunberg, Steven N. Hutchinson, Robert P. Lasner, Mark Olesnavage, F. Folsom Bell, William C. Swaney, Ralph E. Klingenmeyer, Michael J. Jandernoa Trust, Michael J. Jandernoa, Swaney Associates, Ralph E. Klingenmeyer Trust, J. Klingenmeyer Trust, John Klingenmeyer Trust, Amy Klingenmeyer Trust, ......read more.


Summary: 587 F. Supp. Now before the Court are plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to prohibit defendants from advertising for sale any of plaintiff's trademarked products except in connection with specific used Stormor products; plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint; and defendant's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. See Trail Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 381 F.2d 353 (5th Cir.1967) (per curiam) (upholding a permanent injunction against defendant's use of the regis......read more.


Summary: 151 F. Supp. 2d 897 (2000) CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SAVE-A-BUCK CAR RENTAL COMPANY, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant. Invoking the court's diversity jurisdiction, Church's complaint sought a declaratory judgment (1) that Save-a-Buck, as owner/lessor of the rental vehicle, is primarily responsible under Michigan law for providing defense and coverage to Carol Goodwin on the tort claims asserted against her arising from the June 20, 1997 motor vehicle accident; (2) tha......read more.


Summary: 35 F. Supp. In this case, Plaintiff, Lisa Selph ("Selph"), has sued her former employer, Gottlieb's Financial Services, Inc. ("Gottlieb's"), under the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act ("Elliott-Larsen Act"), M.C.L. §§ 37.2101 to .2804, alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment. Selph also alleges claims for constructive discharge, breach of employment contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Agristor Financial Corp.......read more.


Summary: 117 F. Supp. In this federal question action, Plaintiff Todd A. Porter, a bus driver whose left leg was amputated below the knee, alleges that Defendant Arthur E. Ellis, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Michigan Department of Education, has violated Plaintiff's rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the ADA by refusing to allow Porter to continue in his employment as a public school bus driver. of Medical Examiners, 60 F. Supp. of Law Examiners, 970 F. Supp.


Summary: 681 F. Supp. v. Ellerbe Becket Inc., 407 F.3d 255, 260-61 (4th Cir.2005) (citing Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 412 (11th Cir.1999), and Univ. of R.I. v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 2 F.3d 1200, 1202 n. 4, 1203 (1st Cir.1993)); Treasurer v. Fortsmann Little & Co., No. 3:02CV519(JBA), 2002 WL 31455245, at *2 (D.Conn. Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351, 359 (6th Cir.2005) (citing Hess v. Port Auth. Although the Court noted in the Order to Show Cause that the Sixth Circuit considered a numb......read more.


Summary: 859 F. Supp. 1113 (1994) MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, individually and as assignee and/or subrogee of Lewis Abernathie, Oneda Abbott, Minnie Ackenbach, Gordon Aalderink, Earnest Adams, Rene Abbott, and Carrie Adolph, et al., a representative group of thousands of individuals who have received, or will receive, Medicaid benefits and may be eligible for Medicare benefits, Plaintiffs, v. Donna SHALALA, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Blue Cross and Blue ......read more.


Summary: 635 F. Supp. The parties argue over the applicability and interpretation of four contractual provisions which substantively address Dematic's obligation to continue providing certain laid-off employees with fringe benefits (life insurance, hospitalization insurance, hospitalization coverage, and dental insurance). The arbitrator's "Analysis and Conclusions" section stated, in its entirety: The question before the arbitrator is whether or not the company is required to pay insurance benefits to e......read more.


Summary: 842 F. Supp. 965 (1993) Brenda ELLIS, next friend of Kelly Ellis, and Brenda Ellis and Randy Ellis, individually, Plaintiffs, v. TARGET STORES, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant. *966 John F. Eardley, Jensen, Eardley & Stuart, Grand Rapids, MI, for plaintiffs. Charles H. Worsfold, Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan, John F. Eardley, Jensen, Eardley & Stuart, Grand Rapids, MI, for counter-defendants. Plaintiffs/counter-defendants, Brenda and Randy Ellis (Ellis), allege that defendant/counter-plain......read more.


Summary: 634 F. Supp. Defendant first argues that BBP is a necessary party because the employer is generally not a proper party-defendant to an ERISA claim for recovery of benefits, citing Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263, 266 (6th Cir. But see Black v. Long Term Disability Ins., 373 F. Supp. Jass, 88 F.3d at 1490 ("The [ERISA] claim was nonetheless properly dismissed because Jass sued Margulis in an individual capacity and `ERISA permits suits to recover benefits only against the Plan as an entity.........read more.