In a 5 to 4 decision, Artis v. District of Columbia, 199 L. Ed.2d 473 (2018), the United States Supreme Court has held that 28 USC § 1367, the “supplemental jurisdiction” statute containing a statute of limitations tolling provision, stops the remaining time … Continue reading
Category Archives: Business and Commercial Litigation
Supreme Court Asked to Reconsider Chevron Doctrine of Broad Discretion to Federal Agency Interpretation of the Law
The Law Offices of Carson J. Tucker has asked the United States Supreme Court to reconsider giving overbearing government agencies broad discretion to interpret otherwise unambiguous law. I previously posted our United States Supreme Court petition in DCV Imports, LLC … Continue reading
Supreme Court Accepts Amicus Curiae Brief prepared by Law Offices of Carson J. Tucker
The Michigan Supreme Court has issued an Order Docketing Amicus Curiae Brief prepared by the Law Offices of Carson J. Tucker on behalf of Michigan Defense Trial Counsel (local affiliate of the Defense Research Institute), in the case of Skidmore v. Consumers … Continue reading
Posted in Appeals, Appeals and Legal Research, Appellate Lawyer, Business and Commercial Litigation, Insurance Law, Insurance Lawyer, May It Please the Court, Michigan Supreme Court Orders, Property and Casualty, Public Corporations, Recent Judicial Dispositions
Tagged Amicus Curiae Brief, amicus curious, carson j. tucker, consumers energy, michigan, Michigan Supreme Court Orders, property law, Skidmore, Skidmore v. Consumers Energy Company, Supreme Court
Leave a comment
Former Employee’s Alleged Criminal Activities Relevant to Determine “Wage Earning Capacity” for Purposes of Assessing Entitlement to Workers Compensation Benefits
In a case I brought to the Michigan Supreme Court, which remanded in Omian v Chrysler, 495 Mich. 859 (2013), to the Court of Appeals for consideration of my appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals has now reversed the decision … Continue reading
Employee’s Reporting of Potential Future Violation of Law, Regulation or Rule Sufficient to Trigger “Protected Activity” Element in Whistleblower’s Protection Act Claim
In Pace v. Jessica Edel-Harrelson, et al, issued on February 24, 2015, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed a Whistleblowers Protection Act claim. There are two remarkable points to the case. The first is that the COA panel (Shapiro, Gleicher and Roynayne-Krause) holds that … Continue reading
Insurance Coverage Not Available to Employer Mistakenly Listed as Insured on State-Required Workers Compensation Forms
The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday, February 17, 2015, that insurance coverage was not available to an employer (Delphi) merely because the insurers had errantly listed the employer on forms required to be filed with the state to notify … Continue reading
Court of Appeals Issues Ruling On Independent Contractor Case
The Michigan Court of Appeals issued its opinion in a case I briefed (92675_Moore_Appellant’s_Brief_313440.12.26.2013.1838) and argued in the Court of Appeals last summer, ruling consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent disposition of workers compensation insurance coverage for subcontractors holding themselves out … Continue reading
