Scott v TKMS and Travelers
Category: Business and Commercial Litigation
United States Supreme Court Holds Federal Statute of Limitations Tolling Provision “Stops” Remaining Time to File State Law Claims Under Applicable State Statute of Limitations
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 within which to file state law claims if the federal suit is dismissed. The holding […]
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 v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). We swing for the fence and […]
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 Energy Company, Supreme Court Case No. 154030. Prior posts summarized this case, and included the brief. […]
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 I originally appealed. In Omian v. Chrysler.COA.Published, the Court of Appeals agreed that evidence of […]
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 reporting a suspected future violation of a regulation, law or rule is sufficient to trigger […]
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 it of the existence of workers’ compensation insurance. Delphi had multiple subsidiaries, some of which […]
