Cases

Below are some of the more significant reported decisions we've been involved with.

In June 2016, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in our client's favor in a published opinion. The Court found that if a party has a judgment against a business entity, the party can bring a subsequent lawsuit against a shareholder or officer of that company to pierce the corporate veil, without having any other claims against that person. See our blog post for more details.
On Appeal of Oakland Circuit Court ruling, the sole issue is whether the statute of limitations bars plaintiff's claim that he is a shareholder. Although a declaratory judgment cannot be used to avoid the statute of limitations for substantive relief, there is no statute of limitations that limits the time period in which declaratory relief must be sought.
In a precedent setting decision, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided that it has jurisdiction over a private company that manages charter schools. Based on our client's appeal, the NRLB overruled the contrary decision of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission and the NLRB's Regional Director.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of Demorest Law Firm's client. The client had signed a personal guaranty, but Demorest Law Firm successfully argued that the client was not liable because the other guarantor had not also signed the guaranty, as promised.

The Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court affirmed a $4 Million jury verdict on behalf of our client, a tenant of industrial property, in an inverse condemnation case.

After a bench trial, trial court ruled in favor of our client, a franchisor, on a race discrimination claim brought by franchise applicant.

The Michigan Court of appeals affirmed a $6.8 Million jury verdict on behalf of a tenant of industrial property in an inverse condemnation case. Also affirmed by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed $226,000 verdict in favor of our clients, homeowners who were defrauded by real estate salesperson.

U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that our clients’ Complaint was improperly removed from state court to federal court by the defendant Township.

U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of our client on interpretation of insurance policy coverage for pollution.