Publications for General & Commercial Litigation
While most businesses and business owners have developed a healthy fear of IRS tax audits, the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) authority to audit 401(k) plans has not drawn the same attention. For the sake of your small business, and your personal finances, this lack of awareness of the DOL's 401(k) money grab must change immediately!
The list of acronyms in the law is long. For employers, some acronyms are more important than others. And in the context of employment litigation, some are crucial. In this and our next two newsletters, we discuss three state statutes that create the potential for expensive lawsuits against employers: The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act; the Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act; and the Whistleblower Protection Act. These statutes are identified by the acronyms ELCRA, PDCRA, and WPA.
A panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals has welcomed a challenge to the availability of the open and obvious defense to self-service retail stores on the theory that merchandise displays intentionally distract shoppers from hazards. In the first published appellate decision in over a year discussing the open and obvious defense, the court questioned whether the open and obvious defense applies in the retail store setting, and requested that the Court of Appeals convene a special panel of appellate judges to resolve the issue.
Townships have a state constitutional right to "reasonable control" over roads. Townships also have the statutory right to adopt truck route ordinances. What happens if one township’s truck route ordinance effectively pushes commercial traffic into a neighboring township?
This article discusses the unique situation when the purchaser actually benefits from the past seller’s breach - - and the potential legal consequences that might surprise you.
This article provides a general overview of different litigation stages to help with basic understanding of what happens in a lawsuit.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment against a no-fault insurer's defense that it needed the taxpayer identification number of the attendant care provider in order to have "reasonable proof" under MCL 500.5142(2).