If you cannot read today's e-Journal, please visit this link:? 
http://www.michbar.org/e-journal/051701.html Or to receive a plain text 
version, please send an e-mail to lyris@lists.michbar.org? In the body, 
type:? unsubscribe ejournal and on the next line type:? subscribe 
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 
additional  charge thanks in part to the generous support of our advertisers. 
Please  be sure to support these State Bar partners and visit their Internet 
sites  frequently for information about their products and services.  	?	
		
		
		
		[IMAGE]
		
		
		
		
		
		State  Bar of Michigan e-Journal for Thursday, May 17, 2001
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		?qlink
		
		?Use  our specifically designed hypertext links --Quicklinks --  to jump to 
the desired area of today's 
		e-Journal  
		
		
		
		?cases
		Cases  affecting the following practice areas are summarized  in today's 
e-Journal:  
		
		Administrative Law   
		Civil  Rights   
		Constitutional  Law   
		Construction Law   
		Corrections                         
		Criminal  Law   
		Employment  & Labor Law  
		Family Law   
		Litigation  
		Municipal  
		Negligence  & Intentional Tort  
		Real  Property   
		
		Special  Notes: Today's e-Journal includes summaries of four  Michigan 
Supreme Court opinions and six Michigan Court of  Appeals published opinions 
in the following practice areas:  Administrative Law, Civil Rights, 
Constitutional Law, Construction  Law, Employment & Labor Law, Family Law, 
Litigation,  Negligence & Intentional Tort, and Real Property.
		
		Due  to technical difficulties, a summary of the Supreme Court  decision in 
Bolt v City of Lansing will appear in  tomorrow's e-Journal. 
		
		[IMAGE]    
		
		?editorial
		Please click  here to read today's Other  Editorial
		[IMAGE]  
		
		Tell  Us What You Think
		Visit Our New Townhall Forum Electronic Bulletin Board
		
		Amendment  of Local Court Rules 2.100 and 8.108 of the Wayne Circuit  Court, 
and Repeal of Local Court Rules 2.301, 2.401 and  2.503 
		
		?classified
		Listings  in the following areas are in today's Classified  Section:   
		
		Confidential  Records Destruction    
		Expert  Witness   
		Lawsuit  Financials   
		Legal  Research   
		Office  Space Available    
		Positions  Available 
		Services  
		
		
		
		?fieldspractice
		
		Need  to refer a case? See today's Fields of Practice  Listings: 
		
		ADR/Arbitration/Mediation  
		  
		Administrative  Law  
		Adoption  
		  
		Alternative  Dispute Resolution  
		  
		Antitrust/Advertising/Trade  Regulation 
		  
		Appeals  
		  
		Appellate  Law 
		  
		Automotive  Warranty Law 
		  
		Business  & Taxation 
		  
		Construction  Law 
		  
		Copyrights  
		  
		Criminal  Law 
		  
		Environmental  Law 
		  
		Family  Law 
		  
		Federal  False Claims (Qui Tam) Actions 
		Health  Law 
		  
		Hospital  & Medical Negligence 
		  
		Immigration  & Naturalization 
		  
		Immigration  Law 
		  
		Insurance  Law 
		  
		Intellectual  Property Law  
		  
		Labor  & Employment Law 
		  
		Litigation  
		  
		Medical  Malpractice 
		  
		Real  Estate 
		  
		Special  Education Law 
		  
		Tax  Litigation & Disputes 
		  
		Transportation  Law 
		  
		Worker's  Compensation   
		
		
		
		
		
		?newsandmoves
		
		See  this week's News  & Moves for information about your colleagues:  
		
		
		
		barevents? 
		
		See  today's  Bar  Events section for news about upcoming programs and  
activities:  
		
		Criminal  Law Brown Bag "Therapeutic Drug Court" 
		Eighth  Trailblazers Dinner
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		case  summaries  
		
		
		
		Administrative Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Back               to Quicklinks
		
		Issues:?  Registration fees for interstate motor carriers under the 1991  
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA); Whether  effect of 
reciprocity agreements must be considered in determining  amount of fee 
charged or collected on November 15, 1991; Interstate  Commerce Commission 
(ICC)
		Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name:? Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. State of Michigan
		e-Journal  Number:? 10238
		Judge(s):?  Weaver, Corrigan, Taylor, Young, Jr., and Markman; Dissent )  
Kelly; Dissent ) Cavanagh
		
		In an issue  of first impression in any state court, the court held that 
under  the plain language of the ISTEA, reciprocity agreements were 
irrelevant  in determining what registration fees were charged or collected  
as of November 15, 1991. Plaintiff alleged that defendants collected  
registration fees in excess of the amount allowed under ISTEA, contending  
that Michigan could not alter its reciprocity agreements because  these were 
frozen at their November 15, 1991 levels. The court declined  to defer to the 
ICC,s interpretation banning states from charging  registration fees in 
excess of preexisting reciprocal discounts.  The court determined that the 
plain meaning of the ISTEA was clear  and applied the statute as written 
without reaching the agency interpretation.  The ISTEA itself referred only 
to the fees collected or charged,  and contained no reference to reciprocity 
agreements. The court  concluded that it must look at the generic fee 
Michigan charged  or collected from carriers as of November 15, 1991, not at 
the fees  paid by plaintiff in any given year. Reversed and remanded. 
		
		Justice Kelly,  dissenting, disagreed with the conclusion that reciprocity 
agreements  were not relevant to determining the registration fees that 
Michigan  charged and would have affirmed the decisions of the Court of 
Appeals  and Court of Claims in favor of plaintiff.
		
		Justice Cavanagh,  also dissenting, likewise found the statutory language 
ambiguous  and that the ICC permissibly construed it in taking into account  
reciprocity agreements.
		
		Full  Text Opinion 
		
		
		
		
		
		Civil  Rights
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Back               to Quicklinks
		
		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law
		
		Issues:?  Whether an alleged adverse employment action against an employee  
on the basis of her former intimate relationship with her supervisor  
presented a cognizable claim of sex discrimination under the CRA;  Quid pro 
quo sexual harassment; Hostile work environment;  Respondeat superior; Sex 
discrimination; Breach of contract;  Intentional infliction of emotional 
distress
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Corley v. Detroit Bd. of Educ. 
		e-Journal  Number: 10218
		Judge(s):?  Neff, Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen
		
		In  an issue of first impression regarding whether alleged adverse 
employment  action against an employee on the basis of her former intimate 
relationship  with her supervisor presents a cognizable claim of sex 
discrimination  under the CRA, the court held that it does.  Therefore, 
summary disposition of plaintiff,s sexual harassment  claim in favor of 
defendants was improper. Plaintiff alleged that  she was subjected to a 
hostile work environment, sexual harassment,  disparate treatment, and 
unlawful termination because of her sex  and her prior relationship with 
defendant-Smith. Plaintiff established  sufficient facts to survive a motion 
for summary disposition under  either quid pro quo sexual harassment or 
hostile work environment.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
		
		Full  Text Opinion 
		
		Back  to Quicklinks 
		
		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law
		
		Issues:  Alleged discrimination based on race and marital status; The  CRA 
statute of limitations; Wrongful discharge; Failure to timely  initiate an 
appeal of an administrative agency's final decision  to the circuit court; 
Constitutional issues not within the agency's  jurisdiction may be raised in 
the circuit court through the Administrative  Procedures Act (APA) review 
procedure
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name: Womack-Scott v. Department of Corrections
		e-Journal  Number: 10219
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Doctoroff, Hoekstra, and Markey
		
		Since the plaintiff-former  employee failed to bring her CRA claims within 
three years of the  date of her initial discharge for violation of one of 
defendant's  work rules, the trial court properly granted summary 
disposition  to defendant. Plaintiff argued that the trial court used the 
wrong  date when calculating the limitation period and should have used  the 
last day she was employed by defendant. Although plaintiff was  technically 
reinstated for a period of time as a result of administrative  decisions and 
again discharged, the court disagreed that the second  and final discharge 
should apply for purposes of calculating the  limitations period. 
Accordingly, plaintiff's race and marital status  discrimination claims 
accrued on the date of her initial discharge  that was for allegedly 
discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff's wrongful  discharge claim was also 
properly dismissed by the trial court because  plaintiff failed to appeal the 
final administrative decision to  the circuit court within the 60-day time 
limitation provided by  the APA. Affirmed.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law
		
		Issues:?  Age, gender, and race discrimination; Retaliation
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Jones v. Wayne State Univ.
		e-Journal  Number: 10195
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam ) Bandstra, Zahra, and Meter 
		
		Plaintiff,s  claims of age, gender, and race discrimination were properly 
dismissed.  Plaintiff, a 55-year old African-American female, alleged that 
her  reassignment was motivated by defendant-employer,s administrators,  
desire to assemble a young, Caucasian male staff. Plaintiff alleged  that a 
statement by defendant,s manager was direct evidence defendant  discriminated 
against her based on age. However, at most, plaintiff,s  testimony 
established that defendant,s manager observed that the  department was made 
up of young, inexperienced employees. Further,  plaintiff,s subjective 
impressions of her reassignment as a dead-end  job were insufficient to 
establish a prima facie case of  discrimination. Plaintiff,s discriminatory 
replacement arguments  based on gender and race failed because she was not 
replaced by  a nonmember of the protected class. Summary disposition in 
favor  of the defendant was affirmed.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Constitutional Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Back               to Quicklinks
		
		This summary  also appears under Real Property
		
		Issues:  The constitutionality of the Opening of Private Roads and Temporary  
Highways Act (the Private Roads Act (MCL 229.1 et seq.));  Whether the act 
authorizes a taking primarily benefiting a private  rather than a public 
purpose; Overruling Bieker v. Suttons Bay  Twp. Supervisor and McKeighan v. 
Grass Lake Twp. Supervisor  II
		Court:  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name: Tolksdorf v. Griffith
		e-Journal  Number: 10240
		Judge(s):  Kelly, Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Taylor, Young, Jr.; Not 
participating  - Markman
		
		The court struck  down the Private Roads Act (allowing a private landowner to 
petition  a township supervisor to open a private road across another 
landowner's  property) as providing for an unconstitutional taking under 
art.  10, o 2 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, because it authorizes  a 
taking that primarily benefits a private rather than a public  purpose. 
Plaintiffs owned landlocked property and defendants owned  a neighboring 
parcel. Defendants refused plaintiffs' requests seeking  a paved road across 
their parcel and an easement for utility lines.  Plaintiffs sued requesting a 
writ of mandamus compelling the township  supervisor to proceed under the 
act. The trial court ruled against  plaintiffs and the Court of Appeals found 
error in the refusal to  issue the writ. The court concluded that since the 
act gives individuals  a permanent and continuous right to pass over 
another's property,  it allowed a permanent physical occupation of private 
property by  means of government action, and was a taking. The taking 
authorized  by the act appeared to merely be an attempt by a private entity  
to use the state's powers to acquire what it could not get through  arms' 
length negotiations with defendants, and the primary benefit  inured to the 
landlocked private owners, rather than the public.  Reversed and the trial 
court's ruling for defendants was reinstated.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		
		
		
		
		Construction Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Back               to Quicklinks
		
		Issues:?  Statute of limitations for civil claims brought under the Michigan  
builder,s trust fund act; Accrual of civil claims under builder,s  trust fund 
act
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? DiPonio Constr. Co., Inc. v. Rosati Masonry Co., Inc.
		e-Journal  Number:? 10217
		Judge(s):?  Smolenski, Zahra, and Gage
		
		In an issue  of first impression, the court ruled that the six-year statute 
of  limitations found in MCL 600.5813 applies to civil claims brought  under 
the Michigan builder,s trust act therefore, the trial court  erred in 
dismissing plaintiff-subcontractor,s action on the basis  it was time-barred. 
Applying analysis found in case precedent, the  court concluded that when a 
statute itself does not provide a limitation  period, a cause of action 
arising from a statutory violation is  subject to the six-year limitation 
period found in o 5813. Plaintiff,s  claim accrued when defendants were paid 
on the project and defendants  failed to pay plaintiff the amounts due on 
that project. Reversed.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		This summary  also appears under Negligence & Intentional Tort
		
		Issues:?  Retained control over the construction project; Immunity under the  
exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA; Reliance on the Supreme  Court,s 
plurality opinion in Bitar v.Wakim; Expert,s testimony  on the vibration from 
a bulldozer theory; Duty to warn
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Piraine v. BDP Dev.
		e-Journal  Number: 10192
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam- Griffin, Holbrook, Jr., and Murphy
		
		The court corrected  a clerical error and ordered that the final paragraph of 
the earlier  opinion (see e-Journal  # 10080 in the 5/3/01 edition) be 
stricken and replaced  with the following language: &The lower court,s orders 
denying summary  disposition are affirmed and the matter is remanded for 
further  proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain 
jurisdiction.8  The opinion remained the same in all other respects. The 
earlier  release date was vacated. 
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		
		
		
		
		Corrections
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Back               to Quicklinks
		
		Issues:?  Parole; Legitimate reasons for parole board to deny parole to  a 
prisoner assessed with only an average probability of parole
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Searles v. Parole Bd.
		e-Journal  Number:? 10210
		Judge(s):?  Memorandum ) Gage, Cavanagh, and Wilder
		
		Defendant-parole  board did not abuse its discretion in denying parole to 
plaintiff,  a prisoner assessed with only an average probability of parole,  
and the trial court erred in reversing the parole board,s decision.  The 
parole board identified several legitimate reasons for denying  plaintiff 
parole, including (1) the type of crime (CSC II), (2)  the identity of the 
victim, (3) plaintiff,s unstable domestic and  employment histories, and (4) 
her inability to follow rules, reflected  in her misconduct record. The trial 
court,s order was reversed and  the parole board,s decision denying parole 
was reinstated.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Criminal  Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Back               to Quicklinks
		
		Issues:?  Sufficiency of evidence to support conviction of third-degree 
fleeing  or eluding a police officer; Alleged police brutality
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished) 
		Case  Name:? People v. Buchanan
		e-Journal  Number: 10198
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Gage, Cavanagh, and Wilder
		
		There was sufficient  evidence to support defendant,s conviction of 
third-degree fleeing  or eluding a police officer. Defendant argued that the 
evidence  failed to show that he refused to obey a clear signal to stop his  
vehicle. The evidence showed that defendant continued to drive at  a high 
rate of speed, even after a marked police vehicle activated  its overhead 
lights, and that defendant only pulled into a parking  lot because two police 
vehicles blocked his path. The evidence also  demonstrated that defendant was 
driving with an unlawful blood alcohol  level, had a suspended license, and 
was a parole absconder, which  supported an inference that he was 
intentionally trying to evade  the police. Affirmed.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		Issues:  Whether the trial court's refusal to give the requested instruction  
on the lesser included offense of larceny from a person was harmless  error; 
The Carines/Olano plain error rule
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: People v. Davidson
		e-Journal  Number: 10187
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Holbrook, Jr. and McDonald; Dissent - Wilder
		
		Since the erroneous  unarmed robbery instructions seriously affected the 
fairness, integrity,  or public reputation of judicial proceedings 
independent of the  defendant's innocence and the error was not harmless, 
defendant's  conviction of two counts of unarmed robbery was reversed and 
the  case remanded for a new trial. The prosecution conceded that the  trial 
court erred in refusing to give the requested instruction  on the lesser 
included offense of larceny from a person, but argued  that the error had a 
negligible effect on the outcome of the case  and was harmless. The court 
disagreed because the jury was improperly  instructed on the crime of unarmed 
robbery, the crime for which  defendant was convicted, and specific intent. 
The court could not  conclude that the jury's verdict would have been the 
same had it  been given the proper instruction for unarmed robbery. The 
court  also concluded that the instructions given by the trial court 
conflated  the crime of unarmed robbery and accessory after the fact.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		Issues:?  Motion for a new trial; Whether complainant,s recanting affidavit  
was newly discovered evidence; Whether defendant demonstrated a  miscarriage 
of justice; Whether constitutional rights were violated;  Waiver of trial by 
jury
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? People v. Felder
		e-Journal  Number: 10201
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly
		
		Defendant,s  motion for a new trial was properly denied because complainant,
s  affidavit recanting her testimony was unreliable. The record relating  to 
the circumstances immediately preceding complainant,s recantation  supported 
the trial court,s finding that defendant engaged in inappropriate  and 
harassing behavior toward complainant, which indicated that  defendant 
coerced the complainant,s recanting testimony. The record  indicated that 
defendant contacted the complainant four times by  telephone, followed her in 
her vehicle, confronted her in the presence  of her children, and drove by 
her home. The complainant testified  that she was afraid, that she agreed to 
recant her trial testimony  because she wanted no further contact with 
defendant, and wanted  him to stop harassing her. Defendant,s conviction of 
assault with  a dangerous weapon was affirmed. 
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		Issues:  Whether defendant revoked his waiver of rights and unambiguously  
requested an attorney; Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions  of 
second-degree murder and felony-firearm; Whether defendant had  a 
constitutional right to present witnesses at the preliminary examination
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: People v. Harris
		e-Journal  Number: 10202
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Gage, Cavanagh, and Wilder
		
		Since conduct  and silence do not constitute an assertion of the right to 
remain  silent, the trial court did not err by admitting defendant's 
statements  made after he placed his hand over a question on the police 
officer's  statement form and told the officer, "don't write that".  After 
being informed of his Miranda rights before questioning  began, defendant 
chose to voluntarily answer questions. Defendant  answered the first nine 
questions, however after initially answering  the next question, he put his 
hand over the question on the form  and asked the officer not to write down 
his response because it  was untruthful. Defendant did not answer two more 
questions he was  asked, then informed the officer he would not answer any 
more questions,  and wanted an attorney. Defendant claimed that his act of 
placing  his hand over the statement form and telling the officer not to  
write down his response constituted an assertion of the Fifth Amendment  
right to remain silent and revoked his previous waiver of that right.  The 
court disagreed because it was not until after the officer asked  two 
subsequent questions, that defendant verbally and unambiguously  invoked his 
right to an attorney. Affirmed.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		Issues:  Sufficiency of evidence to convict of first-degree felony murder  
and felony-firearm; Failure to instruct on lesser included offenses;  
Distinction between lesser included offense and a cognate lesser  included 
offense; Prosecutorial misconduct; Jury instructions on  stricken testimony; 
Ineffective assistance of counsel
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: People v. Williams
		e-Journal  Number: 10193
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Kelly, Smolenski, and Meter
		
		Even in the  absence of direct evidence identifying defendant as the 
perpetrator,  the circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences from it 
were  sufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant knew the victim's  
daily routine of leaving for work about 5:00 a.m., knew of the victim's  
habit of carrying large sums of money, and thus shot and ultimately  killed 
the victim while attempting to rob him. At 5:03 a.m., the  victim's widow 
heard a gunshot, discovered her husband outside with  a gunshot in the neck, 
and that his wallet was missing. A neighbor  saw defendant leave her house, 
where he lived, just before the shooting.  Another neighbor saw defendant 
walking very fast down the street  right after the shooting. A gunshot 
residue test performed about  three hours after the shooting revealed that 
defendant had residue  on his hands and that the residue came from a gun 
being fired. Affirmed.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Employment & Labor Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Back               to Quicklinks
		
		This summary  also appears under Family Law
		
		Issues:?  Whether certain categories of payments made by defendant to its  
employees constituted &earnings8 within the meaning of the Federal  Consumer 
Credit Protection Act (CCPA); Support and Parenting Time  Enforcement Act 
(SPTEA)
		Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name:? Genesee County Friend of the Court v. General Motors  Corp.
		e-Journal  Number: 10241
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Taylor, Young, 
Jr.,  and Markman 
		
		The  court held that all categories of payments (profit-sharing, recognition  
awards, and signing bonuses) made by defendant to its employees  constituted 
&earnings8 within the meaning of CCPA and are subject  to a limitation on the 
amount that may be captured by income withholding  orders under SPTEA. The 
lower courts held that profit-sharing payments  and recognition awards were 
not earnings, but that signing bonus  payments were. After receiving the 
income withholding orders, defendant  paid to the Friend of the Court 50% of 
the disposable earnings because  it believed that the category of payments at 
issue were subject  to the federal percentage limits on garnishment. The 
judgments of  the Court of Appeals and the circuit court were reversed in 
part,  and remanded.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks 
		
		This summary  also appears under Civil Rights
		
		Issues:?  Whether an alleged adverse employment action against an employee  
on the basis of her former intimate relationship with her supervisor  
presented a cognizable claim of sex discrimination under the CRA;  Quid pro 
quo sexual harassment; Hostile work environment;  Respondeat superior; Sex 
discrimination; Breach of contract;  Intentional infliction of emotional 
distress
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Corley v. Detroit Bd. of Educ. 
		e-Journal  Number: 10218
		Judge(s):?  Neff, Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen
		
		In  an issue of first impression regarding whether alleged adverse 
employment  action against an employee on the basis of her former intimate 
relationship  with her supervisor presents a cognizable claim of sex 
discrimination  under the CRA, the court held that it does.  Therefore, 
summary disposition of plaintiff,s sexual harassment  claim in favor of 
defendants was improper. Plaintiff alleged that  she was subjected to a 
hostile work environment, sexual harassment,  disparate treatment, and 
unlawful termination because of her sex  and her prior relationship with 
defendant-Smith. Plaintiff established  sufficient facts to survive a motion 
for summary disposition under  either quid pro quo sexual harassment or 
hostile work environment.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		This summary  also appears under Civil Rights
		
		Issues:  Alleged discrimination based on race and marital status; The  CRA 
statute of limitations; Wrongful discharge; Failure to timely  initiate an 
appeal of an administrative agency's final decision  to the circuit court; 
Constitutional issues not within the agency's  jurisdiction may be raised in 
the circuit court through the Administrative  Procedures Act (APA) review 
procedure
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name: Womack-Scott v. Department of Corrections
		e-Journal  Number: 10219
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Doctoroff, Hoekstra, and Markey
		
		Since the plaintiff-former  employee failed to bring her CRA claims within 
three years of the  date of her initial discharge for violation of one of 
defendant's  work rules, the trial court properly granted summary 
disposition  to defendant. Plaintiff argued that the trial court used the 
wrong  date when calculating the limitation period and should have used  the 
last day she was employed by defendant. Although plaintiff was  technically 
reinstated for a period of time as a result of administrative  decisions and 
again discharged, the court disagreed that the second  and final discharge 
should apply for purposes of calculating the  limitations period. 
Accordingly, plaintiff's race and marital status  discrimination claims 
accrued on the date of her initial discharge  that was for allegedly 
discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff's wrongful  discharge claim was also 
properly dismissed by the trial court because  plaintiff failed to appeal the 
final administrative decision to  the circuit court within the 60-day time 
limitation provided by  the APA. Affirmed.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		This summary  also appears under Civil Rights
		
		Issues:?  Age, gender, and race discrimination; Retaliation
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Jones v. Wayne State Univ.
		e-Journal  Number: 10195
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam ) Bandstra, Zahra, and Meter 
		
		Plaintiff,s  claims of age, gender, and race discrimination were properly 
dismissed.  Plaintiff, a 55-year old African-American female, alleged that 
her  reassignment was motivated by defendant-employer,s administrators,  
desire to assemble a young, Caucasian male staff. Plaintiff alleged  that a 
statement by defendant,s manager was direct evidence defendant  discriminated 
against her based on age. However, at most, plaintiff,s  testimony 
established that defendant,s manager observed that the  department was made 
up of young, inexperienced employees. Further,  plaintiff,s subjective 
impressions of her reassignment as a dead-end  job were insufficient to 
establish a prima facie case of  discrimination. Plaintiff,s discriminatory 
replacement arguments  based on gender and race failed because she was not 
replaced by  a nonmember of the protected class. Summary disposition in 
favor  of the defendant was affirmed.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		This summary  also appears under Litigation
		
		Issues:  Whether the trial court erred in affirming the arbitration award  
because the arbitrators? exceeded their authority; Whether defendants  
breached the employment agreement (EA); Interpretation of the EA  and related 
documents; Whether the trial court erred in refusing  to award statutory 
interest from the date of the arbitration award;  Whether plaintiffs were 
entitled to 12% interest because the arbitration  award was rendered on a 
written instrument; Economic development  commission (EDC)
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: Young v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
		e-Journal  Number: 10190
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Collins, Jansen, and White
		
		The arbitrators  did not exceed their authority when they issued the 
arbitration  award against the defendant-tribe EDC for breach of plaintiff's  
EA, therefore the trial court did not err in confirming the award.  
Defendants argued that the joint venture master agreement, which  was signed 
by the tribe EDC, contained an arbitration provision  and a waiver of 
sovereign immunity, but contended that the arbitrators  did not have 
authority to decide whether the tribe EDC breached  the EA because the tribe 
EDC did not sign the EA and was not a party  to it. The court concluded that 
when the various documents, which  referred to each other, were read together 
the parties intended  that the documents be construed as one agreement. 
Accordingly, a  breach of the EA constituted a breach of the joint venture 
master  agreement, the claim was subject to arbitration, and the tribe EDC  
could be held liable for the breach. Affirmed, but remanded for  modification 
of the judgment to include post-arbitration award interest  at 12%.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Family Law
		
		
		
		
		
		Back  to Quicklinks
		
		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law
		
		Issues:?  Whether certain categories of payments made by defendant to its  
employees constituted &earnings8 within the meaning of the Federal  Consumer 
Credit Protection Act (CCPA); Support and Parenting Time  Enforcement Act 
(SPTEA)
		Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name:? Genesee County Friend of the Court v. General Motors  Corp.
		e-Journal  Number: 10241
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Taylor, Young, 
Jr.,  and Markman 
		
		The  court held that all categories of payments (profit-sharing, recognition  
awards, and signing bonuses) made by defendant to its employees  constituted 
&earnings8 within the meaning of CCPA and are subject  to a limitation on the 
amount that may be captured by income withholding  orders under SPTEA. The 
lower courts held that profit-sharing payments  and recognition awards were 
not earnings, but that signing bonus  payments were. After receiving the 
income withholding orders, defendant  paid to the Friend of the Court 50% of 
the disposable earnings because  it believed that the category of payments at 
issue were subject  to the federal percentage limits on garnishment. The 
judgments of  the Court of Appeals and the circuit court were reversed in 
part,  and remanded.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		Issues:?  Divorce; Judicial review of property division award rendered  
pursuant to binding arbitration; Alimony in gross as property division;  
Arbitration award providing that if sum certain awarded to spouse  is not 
paid it shall be considered spousal support and nondischargeable  in 
bankruptcy; Arbitrator,s factual findings; Whether arbitrator  violated 
Michigan law
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Krist v. Krist
		e-Journal  Number:? 10220
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly
		
		Defendant-spouse  did not satisfy the exacting &manifest disregard of the 
law8 standard  required for judicial intervention in a property division 
award  issued after binding arbitration and incorporated into the parties,  
divorce judgment. Defendant argued that the arbitration decision  contained 
an award of spousal support in contravention of the settlement  agreement. 
The offending paragraph in the award actually provided  for a lump sum 
payment, or alimony in gross, which was in the nature  of the division of 
property and was completely consistent with the  parties, binding arbitration 
and settlement agreement. The court  also found no error with the arbitrator,
s provision that if the  sum certain awarded to plaintiff was not paid, that 
amount would  be considered spousal support and nondischargeable in 
bankruptcy.  The language employed in the award was a mechanism to frustrate  
any attempt by defendant to circumvent the property division by  filing for 
bankruptcy and discharging the obligation owed to plaintiff.  Affirmed.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		Issues:?  Divorce; Marital assets; Whether the trial court invaded 
defendant's  separate property; Pre-marital agreement; Spousal support; 
Whether  plaintiff's first husband should share in the burden of the spousal  
support award
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Cowen v. Cowen
		e-Journal  Number: 10204
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Wilder, Cavanagh, Hood
		
		The trial court  properly held that the parties, home and Florida condominium 
were  part of the marital estate. It was undisputed that both the home  and 
condominium were purchased after the parties married. Defendant  testified 
that plaintiff was a joint owner of the marital home and  that he intended 
the condominium to be owed jointly between them,  which showed that defendant 
intended that plaintiff be the joint  owner of the properties. By adding 
plaintiff,s name to each deed  of title, defendant willingly included both 
properties in the marital  estate, therefore whether plaintiff helped 
acquire, improve, or  accumulate the property was irrelevant. Affirmed.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		Issues:  Termination of parental rights; Alleged denial of right to jury  
trial
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: In re Curry
		e-Journal  Number: 10212
		Judge(s):  Memorandum - McDonald, Smolenski, and Kelly
		
		Since the respondent-father  had notice of the proceedings but chose to 
remain uninvolved until  after the adjudication, and waited until the 
termination hearing  to request a jury, the trial court did not err in 
denying his request  for a jury trial. The trial court's order terminating 
respondent's  parental rights was affirmed.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		Issues:  Termination of parental rights; Whether release of parental  rights 
should be revoked; Failure to petition the family court to  revoke release
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: In re Kelly
		e-Journal  Number: 10211
		Judge(s):  Memorandum - McDonald, Smolenski, and Kelly
		
		Since the respondent-mother  failed to petition the family court to revoke 
her release of parental  rights, the issue was not properly before the court. 
The court affirmed  the family court's order terminating respondent's 
parental rights  to one of the children following her voluntary release of 
parental  rights pursuant to MCL 710.29.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Litigation
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Back               to Quicklinks
		
		This summary  also appears under Negligence & Intentional Tort
		
		Issues:?  Alleged negligence by violating state and local law in providing  
alcohol to minors; Jury instruction regarding the impairment defense;  
Failure to strike plaintiff,s testimony regarding her percentage  of fault; 
Failing to cure the violation of plaintiff,s substantial  rights when defense 
counsel improperly referred to a fee agreement  and improperly elicited 
testimony from police officers that had  been excluded
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Piccalo v. Nix
		e-Journal  Number: 10215
		Judge(s):?  Hood and McDonald; Dissent ) Zahra
		
		The  trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the impairment  
defense because it would be absurd to allow the defense of impairment  to an 
individual who caused or created the impairment of the injured  person. Due 
to the cumulative effect of errors regarding the trial  court,s rulings there 
was cumulative prejudice. Plaintiff, a passenger  in a van where there were 
only two seats, laid or sat in the back  of the van and was injured by tires 
inside the van, when the driver,  an underage drinker, who was served alcohol 
at defendant,s home,  failed to manipulate a slight curve in the gravel road 
and drove  the van into a tree. The case was reversed and remanded for a new  
trial. 
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks 
		
		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law
		
		Issues:  Whether the trial court erred in affirming the arbitration award  
because the arbitrators? exceeded their authority; Whether defendants  
breached the employment agreement (EA); Interpretation of the EA  and related 
documents; Whether the trial court erred in refusing  to award statutory 
interest from the date of the arbitration award;  Whether plaintiffs were 
entitled to 12% interest because the arbitration  award was rendered on a 
written instrument; Economic development  commission (EDC)
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: Young v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
		e-Journal  Number: 10190
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Collins, Jansen, and White
		
		The arbitrators  did not exceed their authority when they issued the 
arbitration  award against the defendant-tribe EDC for breach of plaintiff's  
EA, therefore the trial court did not err in confirming the award.  
Defendants argued that the joint venture master agreement, which  was signed 
by the tribe EDC, contained an arbitration provision  and a waiver of 
sovereign immunity, but contended that the arbitrators  did not have 
authority to decide whether the tribe EDC breached  the EA because the tribe 
EDC did not sign the EA and was not a party  to it. The court concluded that 
when the various documents, which  referred to each other, were read together 
the parties intended  that the documents be construed as one agreement. 
Accordingly, a  breach of the EA constituted a breach of the joint venture 
master  agreement, the claim was subject to arbitration, and the tribe EDC  
could be held liable for the breach. Affirmed, but remanded for  modification 
of the judgment to include post-arbitration award interest  at 12%.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Municipal
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Back               to Quicklinks
		
		This  summary also appears under Real Property
		
		Issues:  Circuit court order compelling city to approve site plan for  a fast 
food restaurant; Writ of mandamus; Superintending control;  Decision 
involving discretionary authority; Decision based on competent,  material, 
and substantial evidence; Insufficient stacking spaces  to support 
drive-through windows; Traffic study report; Absence  of clear right to legal 
performance
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Kanakry v. City of St. Clair Shores
		e-Journal  Number:? 10194
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly
		
		The court could  not uphold the trial court,s order compelling defendants to 
approve  plaintiffs-property owners, site plan for a McDonald,s restaurant  
because the decision to deny approval of the plan involved discretionary  
authority and was supported by competent, material, and substantial  
evidence. The trial court erred by issuing a writ of mandamus instead  of an 
order for superintending control, but this was not the basis  for reversal. 
Plaintiffs, site plan only provided for 9 stacking  spaces, but 14 were 
required for plaintiffs to have two drive-through  windows. This 
nonconformance with the zoning ordinance alone was  sufficient for defendants 
to deny the site plan. Defendants also  found that the deficient number of 
stacking spaces would create  a traffic hazard and cause an unduly harmful 
impact on the city  as a whole. Reversed and remanded.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Negligence & Intentional Tort
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Back               to Quicklinks
		
		Issues:?  Premises liability; Whether the volunteer doctrine barred plaintiff,
s  premises liability action
		Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name:? James v. Albert
		e-Journal  Number: 10239
		Judge(s):?  Taylor, Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Young, Jr., and 
Markman  
		
		The  court abolished the volunteer doctrine and agreed, but for different  
reasons, with the Court of Appeals that this doctrine did not bar  plaintiff,
s claim, and affirmed reversal of the trial court,s grant  of summary 
disposition for defendant. The court returned this area  of the law to 
traditional agency and tort principles, because it  believed that they will 
better resolve the matters to which the  doctrine might have applied. 
Plaintiff incurred injuries while assisting  defendant in digging a trench on 
defendant,s property. The parties  disagreed about whether defendant invited 
plaintiff to assist him  in digging the trench. Affirmed, and remanded.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks 
		
		This summary  also appears under Litigation 
		
		Issues:?  Alleged negligence by violating state and local law in providing  
alcohol to minors; Jury instruction regarding the impairment defense;  
Failure to strike plaintiff,s testimony regarding her percentage  of fault; 
Failing to cure the violation of plaintiff,s substantial  rights when defense 
counsel improperly referred to a fee agreement  and improperly elicited 
testimony from police officers that had  been excluded
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Piccalo v. Nix
		e-Journal  Number: 10215
		Judge(s):?  Hood and McDonald; Dissent ) Zahra
		
		The  trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the impairment  
defense because it would be absurd to allow the defense of impairment  to an 
individual who caused or created the impairment of the injured  person. Due 
to the cumulative effect of errors regarding the trial  court,s rulings there 
was cumulative prejudice. Plaintiff, a passenger  in a van where there were 
only two seats, laid or sat in the back  of the van and was injured by tires 
inside the van, when the driver,  an underage drinker, who was served alcohol 
at defendant,s home,  failed to manipulate a slight curve in the gravel road 
and drove  the van into a tree. The case was reversed and remanded for a new  
trial. 
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		Issues:?  Premises liability; Whether plaintiff,s premises liability action  
was preempted by the dramshop act; Instructing jury with both SJI2d  19.03 
and SJI2d 19.05; Additur; Application of collateral source  rule; Offset for 
payment by a codefendant insurer
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Mann v. Shusteric Enters., Inc.
		e-Journal  Number:? 10188
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Kelly, White, and Wilder
		
		Plaintiff,s  premises liability action against defendant for injuries 
sustained  in a slip and fall in the parking lot of defendant,s bar was not  
preempted by the dramshop act. Defendant,s service of alcohol was  only 
implicated as it related to defendant,s knowledge of plaintiff,s  condition 
and whether defendant,s conduct in failing to inspect  or clear the parking 
lot and failing to warn plaintiff was reasonable.  The trial court did not 
err in instructing the jury with both the  general duty to business invitee 
instruction and the duty regarding  natural accumulation of ice and snow 
instruction, because the instructions  are not inconsistent. The jury,s 
verdict, denying all noneconomic  damages, was inadequate because the jury 
ignored an entire category  of damages for which plaintiff produced 
uncontroverted evidence.  The trial court abused its discretion in denying 
plaintiff,s motion  for additur. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and 
remanded.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		This summary  also appears under Construction Law
		
		Issues:?  Retained control over the construction project; Immunity under the  
exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA; Reliance on the Supreme  Court,s 
plurality opinion in Bitar v.Wakim; Expert,s testimony  on the vibration from 
a bulldozer theory; Duty to warn
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Piraine v. BDP Dev.
		e-Journal  Number: 10192
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam- Griffin, Holbrook, Jr., and Murphy
		
		The court corrected  a clerical error and ordered that the final paragraph of 
the earlier  opinion (see e-Journal  # 10080 in the 5/3/01 edition) be 
stricken and replaced  with the following language: &The lower court,s orders 
denying summary  disposition are affirmed and the matter is remanded for 
further  proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain 
jurisdiction.8  The opinion remained the same in all other respects. The 
earlier  release date was vacated. 
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Real Property
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Back               to Quicklinks
		
		This summary  also appears under Constitutional Law
		
		Issues:  The constitutionality of the Opening of Private Roads and Temporary  
Highways Act (the Private Roads Act (MCL 229.1 et seq.));  Whether the act 
authorizes a taking primarily benefiting a private  rather than a public 
purpose; Overruling Bieker v. Suttons Bay  Twp. Supervisor and McKeighan v. 
Grass Lake Twp. Supervisor  II
		Court:  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name: Tolksdorf v. Griffith
		e-Journal  Number: 10240
		Judge(s):  Kelly, Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Taylor, Young, Jr.; Not 
participating  - Markman
		
		The court struck  down the Private Roads Act (allowing a private landowner to 
petition  a township supervisor to open a private road across another 
landowner's  property) as providing for an unconstitutional taking under 
art.  10, o 2 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, because it authorizes  a 
taking that primarily benefits a private rather than a public  purpose. 
Plaintiffs owned landlocked property and defendants owned  a neighboring 
parcel. Defendants refused plaintiffs' requests seeking  a paved road across 
their parcel and an easement for utility lines.  Plaintiffs sued requesting a 
writ of mandamus compelling the township  supervisor to proceed under the 
act. The trial court ruled against  plaintiffs and the Court of Appeals found 
error in the refusal to  issue the writ. The court concluded that since the 
act gives individuals  a permanent and continuous right to pass over 
another's property,  it allowed a permanent physical occupation of private 
property by  means of government action, and was a taking. The taking 
authorized  by the act appeared to merely be an attempt by a private entity  
to use the state's powers to acquire what it could not get through  arms' 
length negotiations with defendants, and the primary benefit  inured to the 
landlocked private owners, rather than the public.  Reversed and the trial 
court's ruling for defendants was reinstated.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		Issues:  Whether plaintiff's prior recorded judgment lien had priority  over 
defendants' subsequent mortgage interest
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name: Graves v. American Acceptance Mortgage Corp.
		e-Journal  Number: 10216
		Judge(s):  Gage, Sawyer, and Jansen
		
		Since the subsequent  mortgage constituted a purchase money mortgage, which 
takes priority  over earlier creditors' interests even though the earlier 
interest  was duly recorded, the trial court erred in concluding that 
plaintiff's  earlier recorded judgment lien had priority over defendants' 
mortgage  interest. The divorce judgment granted plaintiff a lien on the 
property  to the extent of Diaz' (her ex-husband) then existing equitable  
title interest in the property as the land contract vendee. The  mortgage 
Diaz granted American Acceptance constituted a purchase  money mortgage 
because Diaz, who had defaulted on the land contract  payments, utilized the 
mortgage proceeds to obtain legal title to  the property by paying off the 
land contract vendors. Accordingly,  notwithstanding that plaintiff filed her 
judgment lien before the  execution of the Diaz mortgage, the purchase money 
mortgage by which  Diaz secured legal title to the property, had priority 
over plaintiff's  judgment lien which arose against Diaz prior to his 
acquisition  of title to the real estate. The trial court failed to accord 
defendants'  purchase money mortgage interest the priority to which it was 
entitled  by law. Reversed and remanded. 
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		Back  to Quicklinks  
		
		This summary  also appears under Municipal
		
		Issues:  Circuit court order compelling city to approve site plan for  a fast 
food restaurant; Writ of mandamus; Superintending control;  Decision 
involving discretionary authority; Decision based on competent,  material, 
and substantial evidence; Insufficient stacking spaces  to support 
drive-through windows; Traffic study report; Absence  of clear right to legal 
performance
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Kanakry v. City of St. Clair Shores
		e-Journal  Number:? 10194
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly
		
		The court could  not uphold the trial court,s order compelling defendants to 
approve  plaintiffs-property owners, site plan for a McDonald,s restaurant  
because the decision to deny approval of the plan involved discretionary  
authority and was supported by competent, material, and substantial  
evidence. The trial court erred by issuing a writ of mandamus instead  of an 
order for superintending control, but this was not the basis  for reversal. 
Plaintiffs, site plan only provided for 9 stacking  spaces, but 14 were 
required for plaintiffs to have two drive-through  windows. This 
nonconformance with the zoning ordinance alone was  sufficient for defendants 
to deny the site plan. Defendants also  found that the deficient number of 
stacking spaces would create  a traffic hazard and cause an unduly harmful 
impact on the city  as a whole. Reversed and remanded.
		
		Full  Text Opinion
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		fields  of practice listings
		
		
		
		
		
		ADR/Arbitration/Mediation
		
		
		
		
		
		
		ASHER N.  TILCHIN, a  member of the American College of Civil Trial Mediators 
and Michigan  Arbitration and Mediation Association provides mediation for 
pre,  early, and matured lawsuits. He has been a successful mediator since  
1991. Tilchin also provides arbitration services as a single or  multi-panel 
arbitrator. Cases involving construction, real estate,  commercial 
transactions, and legal malpractice invited. Asher N.  Tilchin, 31731 
Northwestern Hwy., Suite 106, Farmington Hills, MI  48334, (248)855-0995 or 
Fax (248) 855-0850, e-mail antilchin@aol.com
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Administrative  Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		JAMES R. VIVENTI, James R Viventi PLLC, 3670 Powderhorn  Drive, Okemos, MI 
48864-5924, Phone: (517) 381-0670, FAX: (517)  381-0671. 
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Adoption
		
		
		
		
		
		
		MONICA FARRIS LINKNER, Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz,  PC, 2000 Town 
Center, Suite 900, Southfield, MI 48075-1100, Phone:  (248) 746-4011, FAX: 
(248) 936-1976, e-mail: mlinkner@s4online.com.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Alternative  Dispute Resolution
		
		
		
		
		
		
		DONNA CRAIG, Donna Craig & Associates PLC, 999 Haynes Street,  Suite 245, 
Birmingham, MI 48009, Phone: (248) 682-7750, FAX: (248)  682-2376, e-mail: 
craigassoc@earthlink.net.  Visit www.adr-resource.com
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Antitrust/Advertising/Trade  Regulation
		
		
		
		
		
		
		DAVID G.  CHARDAVOYNE specializes  in the regulation of business competition, 
including: antitrust  law, unfair competition, and the regulation of 
advertising, labeling,  and other trade practices. Former Chairperson of 
State Bar antitrust  and trade regulation section, more than 15 years' 
experience in  this field. Will consult regarding antitrust issues 
(monopolies,  mergers, price fixing, exclusive dealing, tying arrangements, 
price  discrimination, dealer termination, market allocation); premerger  
notice filings under Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; discussions with State  and 
Federal regulatory agencies (FTC, Justice Department, Attorney  General); 
compliance with laws regulating advertising (substantiation  of claims, 
product labels, consumer price displays); and all other  matters relating to 
business competition. David G. Chardavoyne,  26755 La Muera Ave., Farmington 
Hills, MI 48334-4613, (248) 477-6308,  e-mail chardavoyne@aol.com
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Appeals
		
		
		
		
		
		
		LAURIE S. LONGO, 214 South Main, Suite 210, Ann Arbor, MI  48104-2122, Phone: 
(734) 913-5619, e-mail: 42203@msn.com.  Visit http://michiganappeals.com.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Appellate  Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		SAFFORD & BAKER, PLLC, 40900 Woodward Avenue, Suite 110, Bloomfield  Hills, 
MI 48304, Phone: (248) 646-9100, FAX: (248) 646-9102. Visit  
www.saffordbaker.com
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Automobile  Warranty Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		LIBLANG  & ASSOCIATES:  Specializing in "Lemon Law", UCC, Magnuson-Moss, 
Odometer  Fraud and Consumer Protection Act. Available for trials, 
consultations  or referrals. Cases accepted statewide. Over 17 years and 
5,000  cases. Michigan's most experienced lemon law attorneys, Dani K.  
Liblang and Scott J. Sinkwitts. Please call (248) 540-9270 or e-mail   
NoLemons@aol.com 
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Business  & Taxation
		
		
		
		
		
		
		LAW OFFICES  OF RALPH W. PEZDA.  Oakland County practitioner with an LL.M. 
degree in taxation from  New York University will assist your clients or firm 
with taxation,  business, interdisciplinary, and white collar criminal 
matters.  Referrals paid. 27700 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 411, Southfield,  MI 
48034. (248) 352-5632. E-mail address: rwp@cdlcorp.com
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Construction  Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		JOHN V.  TOCCO, attorney,  construction engineer, and civil engineering 
professor, with over  twenty years experience in the construction industry, 
provides mediation  and arbitration services for all construction matters. 
Also provides  litigation support and claims analysis. Cases accepted 
statewide.  Call (313) 406-2040 for CV, or review Profile at 
www.johntocco.com  E-mail john@johntocco.com
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Copyrights
		
		
		
		
		
		
		CAROL R. SHEPHERD, Arborlaw Associates, PLLC, 320 S Main  St, PO Box 8403, 
Ann Arbor, MI 48107-8403, Phone: (734) 668-4646,  FAX: (734) 822-4646, 
e-mail: shepherd@arborlaw.com.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Criminal  Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		F. RANDALL KARFONTA, Attorney @ Law, 113 North Main, PO  Box 565, Leland, MI 
49654, Phone: (231) 256-2200. Visit http://www.leelanau.com  or 
http://www.leelanau.com/professional/karfonta.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		RAYMOND A. CASSAR, Law Offices of Raymond A. Cassar, 30665  Northwestern Hwy, 
Suite 100, Farmington Hills, MI 48334, Phone: (248)  855-0911, FAX: (248) 
855-9523, e-mail: rcassar@aol.com.  Additional offices located in Oakland 
County (248) 855-0911, and Wayne  County (313) 278-8811. Visit 
www.crimlawattorney.com.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		TALPOS & ARNOLD PC, 2855 Coolidge Road, Suite 109, Troy, MI  48084-3215, 
Phone: (248) 643-4515, FAX: (248) 643-4797, e-mail: jctalpos@aol.com.  Visit 
www.Mich-Lawyer.com.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Environmental  Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		DEAN & FULKERSON, PC, Richard A. Barr, rbarr@dflaw.com  or James K. O'Brien, 
jobrien@dflaw.com,  801 W Big Beaver, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084-4767, Phone: 
(248) 362-1300,  FAX: (248) 362-1358. 
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Family  Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		JOHN G. MAKRIS, 802 E Big Beaver Rd, Troy, MI 48083-1404,  Phone: (248) 
528-1811, FAX: (248) 524-0973, e-mail: jgmakris@altavista.com.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Federal  False Claims (Qui Tam) Actions
		
		
		
		
		
		
		HaronDAVID  HARON represents  whistleblowers in civil false claims actions 
and works with referring  attorneys nationwide who specialize in employment 
law and other  fields. Under the federal False Claims Act, private 
individuals  with knowledge of fraud against federal programs can file suit 
on  behalf of the United States and receive a substantial share of any  
recovery. Representing such claimants, Mr. Haron has recovered millions  of 
dollars in Medicare and Medicaid funds that had been fraudulently  obtained 
by health-care providers, primarily through abusive billing  practices. To 
learn more, visit his qui tam web site at www.QuiTamOnline.com  or contact 
him directly by e-mail at dharon@fsh-law.com  or phone (248) 952-0400 at 
Frank, Stefani, Haron & Hall  in Troy http://www.fsh-law.com/
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Health  Law 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		KENNETH R. MARCUS, representing provider organizations and  professionals 
since 1984 in Blue Cross/Medicaid/Medicare Audit Defense,  Payment Appeals, 
Stark Act Compliance, Managed Care Contracting,  Physician Transactions, 
Corporate Law. I work collaboratively with  general counsel. Phone 
888.865.9955, fax: 248.865.9956, e-mail:  krmarcus@aol.com. Visit 
www.lawyers.com/kenmarcus.
		
		Back to Quicklinks             
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Hospital  & Medical Negligence
		
		
		
		
		
		
		THE  LAW OFFICES OF JOHN S. HONE, P.C., representing victims  of hospital and 
medical negligence resulting in serious injury,  permanent cognitive and 
physical disability and wrongful death.  Millions won, available for 
consultation and referral, cases accepted  statewide. Phone Hone: (248) 
888-7585; Toll Free: 888-HMO-1010;  Fax: (248) 473-8895; E-mail to 
mmhmolawsuit@aol.com
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Immigration  and Naturalization
		
		
		
		
		
		
		NAHIL PETER ANTONE, N. Peter Antone, PC, 16445 West Twelve  Mile Road, Suite 
100, Southfield, MI 48076, Phone: (248) 559-0707,  FAX: (248) 559-0790, 
e-mail: Peter@Antone.com.  Visit http://Antone.com.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		ROGER R. RATHI, Attorney at Law, 29777 Telegraph Road, Suite  2500, 
Southfield, MI 48034, Phone: (248) 539-8421, FAX: (248) 353-2786,  e-mail: 
rrathi@yahoo.com.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		STEVEN N. GARMO, Law Offices of Garmo & Garmo, 28230 Orchard  Lake Road, 
Suite 201, Farmington Hills, MI 48334, Phone: (248) 626-0050,  FAX: (248) 
626-0051, e-mail: steve@garmo.com.  Visit: www.garmo.com.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Immigration  Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		MARSHAL  E. HYMAN & ASSOCIATES. All  aspects of immigration law including 
employment-based immigration  for professionals and skilled workers. Labor 
certifications. Family-based  immigration. Immigration from Canada. Political 
asylum, all waivers  and appeals. Corporate transfers for multinational 
employees. Representation  in Immigration courts and Federal courts since 
1981. 3250 West Big  Beaver, Suite 529, Troy, MI 48084. (248) 643-0642, Fax: 
(248) 643-0798.  E-mail: marshalhyman@msu.com
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Insurance  Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		STUART A. SKLAR, Fabian, Sklar & Davis, PC, 31800 Northwestern  Hwy, Suite 
205, Farmington Hills, MI 48334, Phone: (248) 855-2110,  FAX: (248) 855-0209. 
Additional office located in West Michigan  (616) 451-9900, e-mail: 
ssklar-firelaw@tir.com.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Intellectual  Property Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		GIFFORD, KRASS, GROH, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C.,  280 North Old 
Woodward, Suite 400, Birmingham, MI 48009-5392, Phone:  (248) 647-6000, FAX: 
(248) 647-5210, e-mail: info@patlaw.com.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, PLLC, Bloomfield Hills (248) 594-0600;  Grand Rapids 
(616) 742-3500; Washington, DC (202) 955-3750; Englewood,  CO (303) 991-1200. 
Visit www.intelprop.com.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Labor  & Employment
		
		
		
		
		
		
		THE LAW  OFFICE of  Gregory T. Gibbs  is an AV rated firm with years of 
experience in employment law advice  and litigation. We can answer questions 
about: handbooks, sexual  harassment, wrongful discharge, discrimination, 
family medical leave,  collective bargaining, wage-hour issues or any other 
employment  related matter under state or federal law. We work with you and  
your clients under referral fee arrangements. 328 S. Saginaw St.,  Ste. 9001, 
Flint, MI 48502. (810) 239-9470, fax (810) 235-2468,  e-mail: 
bakerlak@tir.com
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		DAVID D. KOHL, 39500 Orchard Hill Place, Suite 110, Novi, MI  48375, Phone: 
(248) 347-6666, FAX: (248) 348-8707, e-mail: daviddkohl@juno.com.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Litigation
		
		
		
		
		
		
		FINK, ZAUSMER & KAUFMAN, PC, 31700 Middlebelt Rd #150, Farmington  Hills, MI 
48334, Phone: (248) 851-4111, FAX: (248) 851-0100. Additional  offices 
located in Detroit (313) 963-3873, and Lansing (517) 374-2735.  Visit 
http://www.lawsite.com  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		STEPHEN K. VALENTINE, JR, Valentine & Associates, 5767 West  Maple Road. 
Suite 400, West Bloomfield, MI 48322, Phone: (248) 851-3010,  FAX: (248) 
851-1553.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Medical  Malpractice
		
		
		
		
		
		
		WANT A SECOND  OPINION ON A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE? The  law offices of 
Anthony M. Malizia, P.C., is a statewide firm that  handles only medical 
malpractice cases. I am Martindale-Hubbell  "AV-rated." I sit as a 
plaintiff's medical malpractice  mediator. I have 20 years experience in the 
review and development  of these cases, many trials to jury verdict, and many 
more settlements.  Over the years, upwards of 20% of my case inventory has 
consisted  of meritorious cases initially rejected by others, including 
"name  firms." Oftentimes these cases were subjected to incomplete  analysis 
because of the firm's lack of in-depth, medico-legal background.  Sometimes 
medical sleuthing or a new perspective was required. Send  me your rejected 
case for a "de novo" review. We also  welcome the referral of "new" cases. 
Anthony M. Malizia,  P.C., 37000 Grand River, Suite 340, Farmington Hills, MI 
48335,  1-800-555-5107 or e-mail: amlmalizia@aol.com
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Real  Estate
		
		
		
		
		
		
		BRAD B. ALDRICH, Law Offices of Brad B. Aldrich, PLLC, 645  Griswold, Suite 
3261, Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: (313) 965-9490,  FAX: (313) 965-9478, e-mail 
belmontald@aol.com.
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Special  Education Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		LAW OFFICES  OF MARSHA LYNN TUCK with  20 years experience, 
Martindale-Hubbell "AV-rated," representing  students with and without 
disabilities in suspension, expulsion,  integration, inclusion, and similar 
cases. Marsha Lynn Tuck, 30700  Telegraph Road, Suite 4646, Bingham Farms, MI 
48025. (248) 585-9338.
		
		Back  to Quicklinks   
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Tax  Litigation & Disputes
		
		
		
		
		
		
		JOSEPH FALCONE  is  available to assist attorneys with Federal and State 
Civil and Criminal  Tax Litigation and Dispute matters. Joseph Falcone, a 
former IRS  Detroit District Counsel Trial Attorney, has handled thousands 
of  tax matters and has 27 years experience working in the specialized  area 
of Tax Litigation and Disputes. If you require assistance with  a major tax 
dispute, wish to refer a matter, or just need a few  minutes consultation 
over the phone with your specific problem or  question, telephone or e-mail 
us jf@lawyer.com.  Visit our website at www.lawyers.com/falconerolfe.  
Falcone & Rolfe, P.C., 3000 Town Center, Suite 2370, Southfield,  MI 48075. 
(248) 357 6610. Fax (248) 357-6613.
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Transportation  Law
		
		
		
		
		
		
		PAUL M. ROSS, P.C., 2840 East Grand River Avenue, Suite  1, East Lansing, MI 
48823-4911, Phone: (517) 337-7677, FAX: (517)  332-9361, e-mail: 
pross1412@aol.com.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Worker's  Compensation
		
		
		
		
		
		
		JOHN M. H ULRICH, IV, Crawforth Mcmanus Tenbrunsel & Ulrich,  999 Haynes 
Street, Suite 245, Birmingham, MI 48009-6702, Toll-free:  (800) 424-4878, 
Phone: (248) 540-1270, FAX: (248) 540-3925. 
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		To receive information  on how to place a Fields of Practice listing, contact 
Stacy  Sage or see Advertising  Opportunities on our website.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		classified  advertising
		
		
		
		
		
		Confidential  Records Destruction
		
		
		
		
		
		
		SHRED-IT.  Confidentiality, Privacy and Document Security are vital in 
today's  environment. SHRED-IT provides solutions for secure destruction  of 
confidential, sensitive and proprietary information, utilizing  a unique, 
mobile, ON-SITE document destruction system. Call 1-800-69-SHRED  or 
1-800-697-4733. E-mail  Eastern Michigan; e-mail  Out state Michigan or visit 
 our website
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Expert  Witness-Building
		
		
		
		
		
		
		EXPERT WITNESS  services  for construction issues. Our cases include issues 
of faulty construction,  failure to disclose, personal injury and ADA. Mr. 
Tyson is a member  of many model code organizations including BOCA, ICBO, 
NFPA and  ASTM. Our attorney clients represent plaintiffs and defendants.  
Rendering independent and unbiased opinions. Ortonville, MI. Phone  (248) 
627-6859.
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		RESIDENTIAL  CONSTRUCTION--ABR  Construction Company, Inc. offering expertise 
in all phases of residential  construction related to workmanship, cost, 
time, structural analysis,  civil analysis, and other related problems. 
Contact Jack W. Belkin  member BOCA, ASHI, Bldg. Spec. Inc. licensed builder 
and real estate  broker. (248) 443-4063, cell (248) 867-5042 and fax (248) 
443-4065,  e-mail jwbelkin@mich.com    
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Expert  Witness-Economics Consulting
		
		
		
		
		
		
		ECONOMIC LOSS CALCULATION and litigation support in personal  injury, 
wrongful death and wrongful discharge cases. Over 25 years  experience 
including Chief Economist for the Michigan Department  of Commerce. John F. 
Hanieski, Ph.D., Economics Consulting Services,  LLC, 8583 W. Eaton Hwy., 
Grand Ledge, MI 48837. (517) 627-6968.  E-mail: hanieski.john@acd.net  
website: http://userdata.acd.net/hanieski.john
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Expert  Witness-Forensic & Environmental Geologist
		
		
		
		
		
		
		FORENSIC  and ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGIST*Certified Professional Geologist;  29 
years investigating soil and water issues for government and  private 
sectors; deposition and trial experience applicable to cases  involving 
insurance claims, construction accidents, environmental  contamination, 
wetlands, property transactions, malpractice, murder,  rape, etc. For more 
information, contact Robert A. Hayes, (517)  655-8348, or 
www.geoforensics.com
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Expert  Witness-Legal Malpractice
		
		
		
		
		
		
		LEGAL MALPRACTICE-EXPERT  EVALUATION, pre-  and post-litigation analysis, 
written opinions, deposition and trial  testimony in plaintiff originated or 
defendant defended legal malpractice  cases that involve Real Estate and 
Commercial Transactions and Civil  Litigation. 18 years' experience as legal 
malpractice expert. Asher  N. Tilchin, Tilchin, Hall & Reynolds P.C., 31731 
Northwestern  Hwy., Suite 106, Farmington Hills, MI 48334. (248) 855-0995, 
fax  (248) 855-0850. E-mail antilchin@aol.com
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Lawsuit  Financials
		
		
		
		
		
		
		DO MONEY  PROBLEMS caused  by disability force some of your clients to settle 
strong, valuable  cases for pennies on the dollar? A Lawsuit Financial, 
L.L.C. contingent  advance allows you time to obtain the maximum dollar 
possible for  your client's case. Lawsuit Financial, L.L.C., 29777 Telegraph 
Road,  Suite 1310, Southfield, MI 48034. Call (248) 948-1800 or (877) 
377-SUIT.
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Legal  Research
		
		
		
		
		
		
		OPEN online  offers instant and cost effective access to public records. 
Select  from many sources of criminal data, verify social security numbers,  
confirm driving records, find addresses, UCC and incorporation filings,  real 
property records, bankruptcies, liens and judgments. For information  call 
800-935-OPEN (6736), email info@openonline.com,  or visit www.openonline.com
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Office  Space Available
		
		
		
		
		
		
		SOUTHFIELD  LAW OFFICE FOR RENT-Reception, conference, kitchen, photocopier,  
fax, file room; secretary to share. Central location near all major  
expressways for quick access for clientele and courts in the tri-county  
area. Attractive and professional. Call Sandra Maison at (248) 355-9400.   
Ddelong@thompsonmorello.com
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Positions  Available
		
		
		
		
		
		
		DAWDA, MANN, MULCAHY & SADLER a full-service Bloomfield  Hills firm, with 25 
attorneys and a national client base, is seeking  a real estate/corporate 
transactional attorney. Qualified candidates  must have 3-5 years experience 
with strong academic credentials.  Send resume and references to Director of 
Administration, 39533  Woodward Avenue, Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, MI 
48304. 
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		 DAWDA, MANN, MULCAHY & SADLER a full-service Bloomfield Hills  firm, with 25 
attorneys and a national client base, is seeking a real  estate/corporate 
transactional paralegal. Qualified candidates must  have 3-5 years experience 
with strong academic credentials. Send resume  and references to Director of 
Administration, 39533 Woodward Avenue,  Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, MI 
48304.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		ESTABLISHED  MID-SIZED AV Rated Bloomfield Hills litigation firm 
representing  businesses and insurance companies, seeks attorney with 0-3 
years  experience. Litigation experience helpful. Please direct resumes to  
Linda Pillsworth via e-mail: lpillsworth@kallashenk.com or, Facsimile:  (248) 
335-9889, or via regular mail: 43902 Woodward Avenue, Suite  200, Bloomfield 
Hills, MI 48302. NO TELEPHONE CALLS PLEASE.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-The  Grand Rapids Bar Association is soliciting 
applications for the position  of Executive Director. The GRBA is a voluntary 
local bar with 1,500  members, a full-time staff of 7, one-half-time position 
and 8 part-time  volunteers. The Executive Director is the chief operating 
officer.  The GRBA includes a Lawyer Referral Service, which will become the  
centerpiece for a new Legal Assistance Center in September 2001. The  GRBA 
has a combined operating budget of $850,000. The Executive Director  also 
oversees, with a committee and the board, the Grand Rapids Bar  Foundation 
with assets of $1 million. The Executive Director is responsible  to a 
seventeen member Board in accord with policies and procedures  adopted by the 
Board. The successful candidate will be a seasoned  executive with a 
demonstrated record of achieving positive results,  including experience in 
the area of fund development. The Executive  Director will exhibit a high 
level of integrity with superior management,  organizational, budgeting, 
personnel, and interpersonal communication  skills. The GRBA offers a 
competitive salary and benefits package.  Applicants are encouraged to submit 
a letter of interest, current  resume, references, and salary requirements to 
Executive Director  Search Committee, c/o Sherrie Parmelee, Smith, Haughey, 
Rice &  Roegge, Calder Plaza Bldg., 250 Monroe NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503,  
(616) 458-2385, sparmlee@shrr.com  The Grand Rapids Bar Association is an 
Equal Opportunity Employer.    
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		IMMEDIATE OPENING--Lague,  Newman & Irish is seeking an associate with 1 - 2 
years experience.  Candidates must have strong academic credentials and 
excellent writing  abilities. Send cover letter, resume, and transcripts to 
Eric Gielow,  Lague, Newman & Irish, P.O. Box 389, Muskegon, MI 49443 (or 
ergielow@lnilaw.com).    
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		INSURANCE  CLAIMS attorney needed for growing company in pleasant, small  
town environment. 3-5 years experience in claims and/or litigation  
supervision with a property/casualty insurance company or insurance  defense 
firm mandatory. Member of the State Bar of Michigan required.  Send resume to 
jhutchins@hastingsmutual.com  or mail to Hastings Mutual Insurance Co., Attn: 
Human Resources, 404  E. Woodlawn Avenue, Hastings, MI 49058.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		MICHIGAN MIGRANT LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT, INC., an established  migrant 
legal services program, seeks an Executive Director. Ideal  candidate has 
five years experience in farmworker law, and some administrative  experience. 
MMLAP is a statewide program that brings high impact cases  in state and 
federal courts. Candidate must be, or promptly become,  licensed to practice 
in Michigan, and must be bi-lingual (English/Spanish).  Salary $65,000-DOE, 
excellent benefits. Applications accepted through  June 15, 2001. MMLAP is an 
EOE. Send resume to: Richard Kessler, Search  Committee, c/o MMLAP, 648 
Monroe, N.W., Suite 318, Grand Rapids, MI  49504.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks
		
		PART-TIME  LAWYER FOR HARLEY-DAVIDSON MICHIGAN, INC.*Lawyer needed (15  - 20 
hrs/wk) at busy domestic and international Fortune 500 corporate  trademark 
law practice in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Strong analytical and  writing skills 
and excellent attention to detail are required. This  is a year-round 
position. Please do not apply unless you have an interest  in practicing 
trademark law. No telephone calls, please. Send your  resume to: Ann Jackson, 
Harley-Davidson Michigan, Inc., 315 W. Huron  Street, Suite 400, Ann Arbor, 
Michigan 48103.  
		
		Back to Quicklinks
		
		RESPONSIBILITES  of this person are to provide advice to various departments. 
Draft,  review and negotiate agreements, debt instruments, and guaranties  
for domestic and international business units. Review all advertising  for 
compliance with FTC regulations, trademark usage and adherence  to corporate 
policies. Defend employment related legal actions and  review and advise on 
hiring practices and procedures. Minimum qualifications  are seven years 
experience from a law firm and/or a major corporation  with relevant practice 
experience. Plus strong background with employment  law. J.D. from a 
accredited law school, admitted to practice law in  Michigan or other U.S. 
jurisdiction. Please send resume to Ashleys@dominos.com  or fax to 
734-930-4350. Salary is 110K.Legal Department, Domino's  Pizza, 30 Frank 
Lloyd Wright Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.   
		
		Back to Quicklinks
		
		UNIVERSITY  OF MICHIGAN*The Office of the Vice  President and General Counsel 
of the University of Michigan is seeking  exceptionally qualified applicants 
for an attorney who will provide  advice and counsel on health law matters in 
the areas of managed care,  reimbursement, research and privacy/security. The 
position requires  experience in the above-noted areas. Candidates with 
strong business  acumen-gained through in-house experience or by working 
closely with  business clients-will be preferred. Minimum qualifications 
include  excellent academic credentials, a law degree from an accredited law  
school, membership in the Michigan bar or eligibility for admission  based on 
reciprocity, and at least 5 years of relevant experience.  The salary will be 
commensurate with the selected candidate's experience  and employment in the 
public section. Applications will be accepted  until the position if filled, 
but applications should be submitted  promptly to ensure full consideration. 
To apply, please send a cover  letter and resume to: Office of the Vice 
President and General Counsel,  Attention: HEALTH, 4010 Fleming 
Administration Building, Ann Arbor,  Michigan 48109-1340. The University of 
Michigan is an equal opportunity,  affirmative action employer. 
		
		Back to Quicklinks
		
		UNIVERSITY  OF MICHIGAN--The  Office of the Vice President and General 
Counsel of the University  of Michigan is seeking exceptionally qualified 
applicants for an attorney  who will take primary responsibility for 
coordinating the University's  litigation in the medical malpractice area. 
The successful candidate  will engage and supervise outside counsel in 
medical malpractice and  will provide advice and representation in other 
areas of health care  law. This position will work closely with the senior 
leadership of  the University Health System, including the Chief of Staff for 
Clinical  Affairs and the Director of the Medical Center Risk Management 
Office,  other attorneys in the Office of the Vice President and General 
Counsel,  and with individual members of the medical staff. The successful 
candidate  will draft and review policies; serve on University committees; 
conduct  educational programs on legal topics for the University community,  
and carry out other duties as assigned. Experience providing legal  services 
for a university affiliated, or similar, health care system  is desired. A 
law degree from an NALS accredited law school, membership  or eligibility for 
membership in the State Bar of Michigan, at least  five years litigation 
experience with an emphasis on medical malpractice,  reasonable experience in 
health care law are required. Applications  will be accepted until the 
position is filled, but applications should  be submitted promptly to ensure 
full consideration. To apply, please  send a cover letter and resume to: 
Office of the Vice President and  General Counsel, Attention: MED MAL, 4010 
Fleming Administration Building,  Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1340. The 
University of Michigan is an equal  opportunity, affirmative action employer. 
		
		Back to Quicklinks
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Services
		
		
		
		
		
		
		SOUTH FLORIDA  ATTORNEY available for consultations, all legal and business  
matters, referrals, or local counsel, litigation and estates. Contact  Mark 
M. Berkley, 385-C West 49th Street, Hialeah (Miami) Florida  33012, telephone 
305.556.2626. Member of the State Bar of Michigan  for 25 years and the 
Florida Bar for 14 years.
		
		Back to Quicklinks               
		
		To receive information  on how to place a classified advertisement, contact 
Stacy  Sage  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		news  & moves
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		  bar events 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		archived  e-Journals 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Case  Summary Cumulative Index
		
		Thursday, May  10  e-Journal  
		
		Friday, May  11 e-Journal
		
		Monday, May  14 e-Journal
		
		Tuesday, May  15 e-Journal
		
		Wednesday,  May 16 e-Journal
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		contacts
		
		
		
		
		
		
		For information  on classified advertising, contact Stacy Sage
		
		For information  on fields of practice listings, contact Stacy  Sage
		
		For unsubscribe  and change of address issues, contact: Carrie  Pickett
		
		To list bar  event information, send your information to Carrie  Pickett
		
		Editorial  comments may be sent to Nancy  Brown
		
		Technical  questions may be sent to e-journal-tech@michbar.org
		
		Who  Does What at the State Bar  
		
		Back to Quicklinks  
		
		
		
		
		To receive the  text-only version, please send an e-mail to 
lyris@lists.michbar.org In  the body, type: subscribe ejournal-text. To 
unsubscribe from the html  version, type: unsubscribe ejournal on the next 
line. You may re-subscribe  or unsubscribe at any time.  

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