Cases

737 F.Supp.2d 696 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. D-3, Monica CONYERS, Defendant. Case No. 09-20025. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. August 17, 2010. David A. Gardey, Mark Chutkow, Michael Bullotta, Rita E. Foley, Robert P. Cares, U.S. Attorney's Office, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff. Steven F. Fishman, Detroit, MI,

402 Mich. 546 (1978) 266 N.W.2d 148 THE VOGUE v. SHOPPING CENTERS, INC Docket No. 59347, (Calendar No. 1). Supreme Court of Michigan. Argued April 11, 1978. Decided June 7, 1978. Rubenstein, Pruchnicki & Chittle for plaintiff. Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn (by Avern Cohn and Edward F

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART OFFICIAL-CAPACITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 32) AVERN COHN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This case involves a challenge to what plaintiffs say is a policy, custom and practice of questioning Muslim-American’s as they enter the United States regarding their religious beliefs and practices in violation of t

406 Mich. 137 (1979) 277 N.W.2d 475 ED ZAAGMAN, INC. v. CITY OF KENTWOOD TURKISH v. CITY OF WARREN Docket Nos. 57225, 57342. (Calendar Nos. 6, 7). Supreme Court of Michigan. Argued October 5, 1976. Decided March 27, 1979. Varnum, Riddering, Wierengo & Christenson (by Jon F. DeWitt and Jeffrey L. S

403 Mich. 399 (1978) 270 N.W.2d 845 BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN v. INSURANCE COMMISSIONER Docket No. 59320, (Calendar No. 2). Supreme Court of Michigan. Argued November 1, 1977. Decided October 2, 1978. Foster, Swift, Collins & Coey, P.C. (by Theodore W. Swift and David Vander Haagen), fo

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 09a0176p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X - DAVID R. HUNTER,

Levin J. (dissenting). The Constitution permits an advisory opinion as to the constitutionality of legislation only "after it has been enacted into law”. Const 1963, art 3, § 8. The words "after it has been enacted into law” were proposed as an amendment on the floor by delegate (now Secretary of State) Austin who stated that the purpose was to "prevent the supreme court from getting involved until the

752 F.Supp.2d 801 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Phillip ZABAWA, Defendant. No. 04-CR-80844. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. November 23, 2010. *802 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING COUNT ONE OF INDICTMENT CHARGING DEFENDANT PHILLIP ZABAWA WITH ASSAULTI

396 Mich. 123 (1976) 240 N.W.2d 193 ADVISORY OPINION ON CONSTITUTIONALITY OF 1975 PA 227 Docket No. 57850, (Calendar No. 11). Supreme Court of Michigan. Argued March 5, 1976. Decided March 29, 1976. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, and Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General. Charles D. Hackney, George M. El

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2000 FED App. 0083P (6th Cir.) File Name: 00a0083p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ ;  MCMAHAN & COMPANY,  Plaintiff-Appellant,

402 Mich. 554 (1978) 267 N.W.2d 72 SHAVERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL Docket Nos. 57931, 57935, 57916, 57934. (Calendar Nos. 14-17). Supreme Court of Michigan. Argued March 3, 1977. Decided June 8, 1978. Application for rehearing filed August 31, 1978. Lopatin, Miller, Bindes, Freedman & Bluestone (by

377 Mich. 565 (1966) 141 N.W.2d 36 FENESTRA INCORPORATED v. GULF AMERICAN LAND CORPORATION. Calendar Nos. 13, 14, Docket Nos. 50,728, 50,738. Supreme Court of Michigan. Decided April 5, 1966. *569 Butzel, Eaman, Long, Gust & Kennedy (Rockwell T. Gust, Victor W. Klein and John L. Vanker

MERRITT, Circuit Judge, dissenting. At the outset, we should keep firmly in mind that for more than 50 years, Ohio has expressly informed its citizens in many ways — in the law itself and in its legislative history and in various state publications and on tax returns and other state official forms — that its motto recites the message of Jesus in Matthew 19:26. That is not, as the Court seems to suggest, a secr

275 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2001) United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Randy Graham, Defendant-Appellant. No. 99-1719 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Argued: January 24, 2001Decided and Filed: December 17, 2001 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of M

OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam. On January 13, 1985, defendant Daily and Sunday Freeman (hereinafter Freeman) published an article entitled "Tormented by a Drug-Crazed Daughter” as 1 in a series of 27 articles on drug abuse written by defendant Sheila Isenberg. The instant lawsuit was precipitated by this article. Essentially, plaintiffs maintain that they agreed to be interviewed by Isenberg, but that Ise

419 Mich. 686 (1984) 358 N.W.2d 873 In re CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ODGERS v. ORTHO PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION GRAINGER v. SANDOZ PHARMACEUTICALS Docket Nos. 68958, 69340. (Calendar Nos. 20, 21). Supreme Court of Michigan. Argued May 5, 1983. Decided December 10, 1984. Philo, Atkinson, Steinberg, Walker & Whi

698 F.2d 270 1 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 72 Dorothy STEINHOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Patricia R. HARRIS, Secretary of Health, Education andWelfare, Defendant-Appellee. No. 81-1011. United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit. Argued July 26, 1982.Decided Jan. 17, 1983. Bruce L. Jer

407 Mich. 561 (1980) 287 N.W.2d 895 COVERT TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR v. STATE TAX COMMISSION Docket Nos. 60345, 60360. (Calendar Nos. 4, 5). Supreme Court of Michigan. Argued October 6, 1978. Decided February 7, 1980. Bauckham, Reed, Lang, Schaefer & Travis for plaintiff. Lawrence B. Lindemer and Robert J.

JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge. On May 18,1964, Thomas Berry, Jr., with the advice of court-appointed counsel, waived his right to a trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty to the open charge of murder in the Recorder’s Court of the city of Detroit, Michigan. 1 At

Boyle, J. (dissenting). We write separately because while we agree with the majority that Michigan courts have announced no rule of law on the questions presented, we cannot agree that we should decline to answer them. The duty of a manufacturer to warn of dangers inherent in the use of its product is a creature of common law. Thus, rulings which relate to this duty are well within the appropriate province of this