Source: https://www.vininglaw.net/2013/02/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:39:30+00:00

Document:
A good discussion of the law of dog bite cases is found in Hill v. Sacks, 256 Mich App 443 (2003). In that case, Plaintiff’s young child was awarded a judgment by a jury in Monroe County, Michigan. This judgment was reviewed by and affirmed (agreed to) by the Michigan Court of Appeals.
“Similarly, we conclude that the dog-bite statute does not allow for consideration of any comparative negligence on the part of the dog-bite victim, excluding possibly where the negligence may relate to the defense of provocation. The dog-bite statute by its clear and unequivocal language does not allow consideration of any negligence or fault, as that term is generally used, on the part of the owner of the dog. If the other considerations contained in the dog-bite statute are satisfied, there i no liability where provocation exists, and there is liability where provocation is lacking.” Bradacs, supra at 267.
In the recent (unpublished) case of Berger v. Katz, Case No.: 293880 the Michigan Court of Appeals, the appellate court of Michigan, affirmed (agreed with) significant relief afforded to the minority shareholder. In doing so the Court of Appeals swept aside the argument of the Defendants that the minority shareholders were not entitled to relief under MCL 450.1489 because all of their decisions and conduct was authorized by the bylaws. The Court of Appeals noted that even authorized and legal decisions could still be oppressive to the minority shareholders.
(3) As used in this section, “willfully unfair and oppressive conduct” means a continuing course of conduct or a significant action or series of actions that substantially interferes with the interest of the shareholder as a shareholder. Willfully unfair and oppressive conduct may include the termination of employment or limitation on employment benefits to the extent that the actions interfere with distributions or other shareholder interests disproportionately as to the affected shareholder. The term does not include conduct or actions that are permitted by an agreement, the articles of incorporation, the bylaws, or a consistently applied written corporate policy or procedure.
If you or a loved one are a victim of oppressive conduct, call Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group, PLC, for a discrete and no charge consultation. Elements of oppressive conduct found by various courts include: being denied notices, changes in bylaws and articles of incorporation, insider contracts, salary elimination, termination of employment, issuing stock without need the corporation, significant pay and benefit increases to those in control of the corporation and denying the minority shareholders a voice in management.
Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the downriver city of Taylor where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented shareholders in stock court actions including the Court of Appeals. All initial consultations are confidential and without charge. Please feel free to call.
The Chicago Tribune on February 7, 2013 reported that a family of a man who died after a surgery filed suit. Specifically, the man under went surgery to repair a hernia and died 6 days later. The lawsuit alleges that the surgeon and the hospital were negligent in failing to properly monitor his condition and treat severe colon inflammation, thus creating a personal injury.
In Michigan, medical negligence, a form of personal injury, cases are referred to as medical malpractice. Such suits allege that the medical professionals and institutions failed to do something that are outside of the standard of care under the circumstances of the case. Medical malpractice cases must be carefully investigated and promptly filed. The statute of limitations for such cases is only two years.
If you or a loved on have a question about medical, dental, or other professional malpractice, just call Guy Vining. Guy Vining is a personal injury attorney who serves Metro-Detroit and the Downriver communities of Rockwood, Brownstown, Woodhaven, Grosse Ile, Gibraltar, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Wyandotte, Lincoln Park, Allen Park, Dearborn, Ecorse, Taylor, and Romulus. All initial consultations are free of charge and representation is on a contingency fee basis so that you will not have to pay attorney fees out of pocket.
Operators of public transportation, such as buses, owe special duties of care to their passengers. The Tacoma News-Tribune reported on January 6, 2013 that several victims of a fatal bus crash filed a lawsuit against the bus company for personal injuries. In the suit, the Plaintiff say the bus driver was traveling too fast on roads which were covered by snow and ice and overly fatigued from driving far too many hours the preceding week.
Public transportation companies are responsible for the wrongful acts and omissions of their employees, and any personal injuries that may fall on their passengers from events like sudden stops or a bus crash. Members of the public have a right to be transported safely when the fee for transportation is paid.
On February 5, 2013 the 6th Circuit Court issued an interesting opinion concerning creditors’ rights after mortgage foreclosures in In re: Richard K. Miller, No.: 11-2357 (unpublished). The question before the court was whether the Bank’s credit bid at a Michigan Sheriff’s sale (after foreclosure by advertisement) extinguished the debtor’s debt to the bank. The bankruptcy court determined that it did and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed/agreed with that decision.
In Bank of Three Oaks v. Lakefront Properties, 444 N.W. 2d 217, 553 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)(per curiam), the mortgagee bank bid $147,129.42, constituting the full amount of the debt plus the cost of foreclosure and statutory attorney’s fees, at the foreclosure sale following a Michigan foreclosure by advertisement. When the sheriff’s deed became operative at the conclusion of the redemption period, the bank became the titled owner of the property. Thereafter, the bank sold the property for $150,000.00. The bank filed suit against the mortgagors to collect an alleged deficiency for the interest, taxes, and insurance premiums accrued between the date of the foreclosure sale and the date the redemption period expired. Id. at 554-55. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that “[w]hen property is purchased at a foreclosure sale for an amount equal to the amount due on the mortgage, the debt is satisfied.” Id. at 555 (citing Guardian Depositors Corp. v. Hebb, 287 N.W. 796 (Mich. 1939), and Powers. v. Golden Lumber Co., 5 N.W. 656, 657 (Mich. 1880)). Because the debt was extinguished at the foreclosure sale, the court held that the bank could not pursue any deficiency where the mortgagor did not redeem the property. Id. at 556-557.
The same legal principals have been applied in other Michigan cases. See Smith v. Gen. Mortg. Corp., 261 N.W. 2d 710, 712-13 (Mich. 1978)(per curiam); Kennedy v. Brown, 15 N.W. 498, 499-500 (Mich. 1883); New Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Globe Mortg. Corp., 761 N.W. 2d 832, 836 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008); Emmons v. Lake States Ins. Co., 484 N.W. 2d 712, 714 (Mich. Ct. App. July 1, 2008) (unpublished per curiam). Similarly, the Second Circuit applied Michigan law in Chrysler Capital Reality, Inc. v. Grella, 942 F.2d 160 (2d Cir. 1991), to hold that a mortgagee who successfully bid the entire amount of the debt at a foreclosure sale could not thereafter maintain an action for damages against the mortgagor, despite the mortgagee’s allegations that the actual value of the property at the time of the foreclosure sale was far less than the debt and that the mortgagee had been fraudulently induced into making the transaction.
If you or a loved one have questions concerning your rights or obligations with creditors you should immediately seek a qualified bankruptcy attorney.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.