Archive for Litigation

No Need to Reply to Affirmative Defenses

No Need to Reply to Affirmative Defenses

  • February 10th, 2011
  • W. Jay Brown
  • Comments Off on No Need to Reply to Affirmative Defenses

One of my pet peeves relate to demands for a reply to affirmative defenses. I’ve always considered this to be a pointless and wasteful exercise. I’m annoyed when opposing counsel makes such a demand and causes my client to needlessly…

Environmentalist Victory Short Lived?

Environmentalist Victory Short Lived?

  • January 16th, 2011
  • W. Jay Brown
  • Comments Off on Environmentalist Victory Short Lived?

At the very end of the 2010 term of the lame duck Democratic majority, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its 4-3 decision in Anglers of the AuSable v DEQ and provided a significant victory for Michigan environmentalists. The decision has…

Duty of Reasonable Inquiry does not include Bankruptcy Search

Duty of Reasonable Inquiry does not include Bankruptcy Search

  • November 17th, 2010
  • W. Jay Brown
  • Comments Off on Duty of Reasonable Inquiry does not include Bankruptcy Search

Like many attorneys, I’ve experienced the uncomfortable feeling of being blindsided by a previously unknown fact that a client should have told me being raised in litigation. The recent opinion issued by the Michigan Court of Appeals in Food Solutions…

Pay close attention to expert interrogatories

Pay close attention to expert interrogatories

  • September 28th, 2010
  • W. Jay Brown
  • Comments Off on Pay close attention to expert interrogatories

In a case that is sure to trap the unwary, the Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld a trial court’s bar of expert witness testimony as a discovery sanction for failing to supplement answers to interrogatories. In the case of…

Michigan Contract Disputes – Rebirth of the Latent Ambiguity Doctrine

Michigan Contract Disputes – Rebirth of the Latent Ambiguity Doctrine

  • August 27th, 2010
  • W. Jay Brown
  • Comments Off on Michigan Contract Disputes – Rebirth of the Latent Ambiguity Doctrine

This week, the Michigan Supreme Court released its opinion in Shay v Aldrich, (# 138908 released August 23, 2010) and held that sometimes, “all” does not mean “all.” The facts in Shay were straight-forward – a plaintiff settled with two…

Deficiency Actions against Guarantors

Deficiency Actions against Guarantors

  • January 22nd, 2010
  • W. Jay Brown
  • Comments Off on Deficiency Actions against Guarantors

Recently, the Michigan Court of Appeals in Dearborn Capital Corporation v Facundo Bravo, (Docket No. 284274 released 9/22/09) issued a decision that serves as a harsh reminder to creditors of the consequences of failing to observe the letter of the…

Summary Disposition Practice

Summary Disposition Practice

  • January 22nd, 2010
  • W. Jay Brown
  • Comments Off on Summary Disposition Practice

In the recently released published opinion of Barnard Manufacturing v Gates Performance Engineering, (docket 286003 released August 18th), the Michigan Court of Appeals emphasized and clarified the non-moving party’s burden when responding to such motions. In that case, the plaintiff…

Actions Involving Corporations

Actions Involving Corporations

  • January 22nd, 2010
  • W. Jay Brown
  • Comments Off on Actions Involving Corporations

Business litigation involving a corporation typically involves claims brought under the Michigan Business Corporations Act (“BCA”), MCLA 450.1101 et. seq. However, the BCA is not the only source of statutory claims involving corporations. Section 3605 of the Revised Judicature Act,…

The Burden of Proof in Adverse Possession

The Burden of Proof in Adverse Possession

  • January 22nd, 2010
  • W. Jay Brown
  • Comments Off on The Burden of Proof in Adverse Possession

The burden of proof in an adverse possession case is “clear and cogent.” There is a terrific legal citation to quote regarding this heightened burden when defending adverse possession claims. Take a look at footnote 2 from the case of…

Page 1of 2: 1 2