Dave:

As per my voice mail, I'm planning to set up the conference call for
Wednesday morning.  I will send the demo to Milbank, Canadian and Japanese
counsel for them to review in conjunction with their research for us.  From
our preliminary advice, I believe that we will need to structure the game
similar to the format in the demo to avoid liability in various jurisdictions
for violating trademark restrictions on the use of the terms Olympics, Sydney
2000 and the like.  We will be able to offer the games to most US residents
as well as those European residents for which we received the green light
during the Euro2000 research.  We should also be able to offer the game to
Japanese residents so long as the prize has a value no greater than 100,000
yen.  We will not be able to offer the game to residents of Australia or
Singapore (see David Minn's e-mail below re Australia).  I am waiting for
final word on Canada.

Leslie
----- Forwarded by Leslie Hansen/HOU/ECT on 08/15/2000 08:32 AM -----

	David Minns@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
	08/14/2000 05:14 PM

		 To: Leslie Hansen/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Alan Aronowitz@ECT, Paul Quilkey/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
Kirsty Hogarth/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
		 Subject: Re: EOL Sports Game

As per my voicemail

 If Olympic terms are used we will not be protected by disclaimers.
We are talking multiple permits for the various States. I have spoken to our
Managing Director and we do not want to invest any more in resources in what
would be a huge exercise to get lottery licences for an internet product in
each of the States in a matter of days.

Leslie Hansen@ECT
15-08-2000 03:10
To: David Minns/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:

Subject: Re: EOL Sports Game

David:

1.  If Australian residents are not permitted to play the game and we make
clear disclaimers of such and restrict dissemination of marketing materials
to exclude Australian residents, can we avoid liability under Australian law?

2.  If we try to structure the game so that it complies with Australian law,
it appears that we will still be required to seek a permit to offer a game
such as this (notwithstanding the Olympics issue) in Australia.  Can you talk
to your commercial guys to determine how many Australian EOL CPs we currently
have and whether it is worth the expenditure of the resources necessary to
obtain a permit to make this game available to those CPs.

Leslie

	David Minns@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
	08/13/2000 11:03 PM

		 To: Leslie Hansen@ECT
		 cc: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, anne.hung@bakernet.com,
jbruvall@cal.stikeman.com, John Viverito/Corp/Enron@Enron, Justin
Timothy/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Paul
Quilkey/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, paul.davis@bakernet.com, Dave
Samuels/HOU/ECT@ECT, scott.farrell@msj.com.au
		 Subject: Re: EOL Sports Game

Leslie we need to talk about this asap.

It is irrelevant whether we are charging to play game. The distribution of
prizes through chance triggers the requirement for a licence. Generally this
would not be a problem but as Mallesons observed the licensing of gambling on
the internet is major political issue and we should not expect a permit to be
granted at an administrative level. Hence delays should be expected.
There is zero chance of us getting approval to use   Sydney Olympic names and
images. They have already been sold off. The use of the Olympic name etc. is
reserved to partners who have tipped in millions. I did a quick check of the
net and found that there is already a sweepstakes being run on behalf of
these partners. It appears that the sweepstakes includes global partners such
as IBM and hence  there might be restrictions in other jurisdictions on
running a game in competition to it.
The legislation is broadly drafted to pick up any use of "Olympic" and
related terms.  The Act is additional to normal trademark legislation and is
designed to stop unauthorised orgainisations associating themselves with
Olympics so as to protect the value of sponsorships  Attached is an extract
from the legislation listing some (but not all) of the terms that can't be
used.

   http://www.olympics.com/eng/sponsors/goodsports.html

Leslie Hansen@ECT
12-08-2000 01:54
To: David Minns/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, scottfarrell@msj.com.au
cc: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, anne.hung@bakernet.com,
jbruvall@cal.stikeman.com, John Viverito/Corp/Enron@Enron, Justin
Timothy/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Paul
Quilkey/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, paul.davis@bakernet.com, Dave
Samuels/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Re: EOL Sports Game

David and Scott:

I certainly appreciate your very prompt feedback on this issue.  I need to
clarify one important misconception included in Scott's memorandum:  The game
will be open to all customers on EnronOnline, not just Enron employees.
Enron employees will be permitted to participate although there may be
restrictions placed on their ability to win prizes.  In light of this fact
and the information contained in your memorandum, I have several follow up
questions:

1.  The game is open without entry fee or charge.  Does this make a
difference under the lottery legislation outlined in the memo or do you
believe we will still need to seek a permit?  If it will be necessary to
obtain a permit, we would like to proceed as quickly as possible in trying to
obtain one.

2.  With regard to the use of the "Sydney 2000" "Olympics" etc. names and
symbols,  we would like to proceed as quickly as possible to obtain a license
to use the names.  It is vital that we obtain the right to use these symbols
in the promotion and hosting of this game.

3.  Notwithstanding the issues surrounding use of the trademarked names and
symbols referring to the Olympics, are there any other restrictions
prohibiting the promotion of a game related to the Olympics?

Regards,

Leslie

	David Minns@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
	08/10/2000 05:29 PM

		 To: Leslie Hansen/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: jbruvall@cal.stikeman.com@ECT, anne.hung@bakernet.com@ECT,
paul.davis@bakernet.com@ECT, John Viverito/Corp/Enron@Enron@ECT, Alan
Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Justin Timothy/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
Paul Quilkey/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
		 Subject: Re: EOL Sports Game

Attached is a brief advice I asked outside counsel to prepare. They confirm
my understanding that a permit would almost certainly be required. They also
raised another obvious concern. There is legislation designed to protect
businesses who are not Olympic sponsors cashing on the Olympics. Particularly
in New South Wales this legislation is being rigorously enforced to the
extent possible by the regulators.

David Minns
10-08-2000 11:05
To: Leslie Hansen/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: jbruvall@cal.stikeman.com@ECT, anne.hung@bakernet.com@ECT,
paul.davis@bakernet.com@ECT, John Viverito/Corp/Enron@Enron@ECT, Alan
Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Justin Timothy/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
Paul Quilkey/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT

Subject: Re: EOL Sports Game

 Whilst it appears to be an excellent marketing strategy the caution
displayed in researching the law in various jurisdictions is justified. On
what you have told me there are two potential issues. My initial view is that
sweepstake may be considered a lottery under New South Wales (the State where
Enron is based) gaming laws. If  this correct then we will need a license. I
should be able to confirm this later today. We will also need to check the
other Australian States where we have counterparties. There also significant
public debate on internet gambling in Australia. Recently the Federal
Government indicated that it would move to regulate the area.

The second relates to passing  items of value to employees of  companies with
whom we do business.  To be frank I am uncomfortable with any arrangement
that could result in this occurring unless we had the informed consent of the
employer. Apart from the negative fallout that may result, we are we also
need to be mindful that in Australia a number of our counterparties are
Government owned utilities. This does raise questions as the possible
application of the Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act. On the facts available
I could not preclude a circumstance arising that could be viewed as not in
compliance with that Act.

Leslie some further facts will assist.

How will the offer be made - will it just be on the website or will
promotional material also be sent?
Which Enron entity will be making the offer?
Who can "play"? Will it only be the master user or can anyone with a password
play?
To whom would the prize be given? Would  it go to the individual or would the
prize be given to the company with no possibility of it being intercepted by
the individual?

Japan will also have some issues relating to gaming which I am sure Anne at
B&M will be able to advise on. Do we need to check on the situation in
Singapore?

Sorry to throw up all these problems but this proposal does have some real
issues - atleast on the facts given in your email.

Leslie Hansen@ECT
10-08-2000 05:04
To: jbruvall@cal.stikeman.com, anne.hung@bakernet.com,
paul.davis@bakernet.com, David Minns/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: John Viverito/Corp/Enron@Enron, Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: EOL Sports Game

As we have discussed either directly or indirectly, EnronOnline is interested
in offering an on-line sweepstakes game to its customers.   The game will be
based upon the Olympic games and is similar in concept to a fantasy football
league.   A participant selects several countries as its "team" and
accumulates points based upon the medals earned by its countries' in the
Olympic games.  Unlike fantasy football, however, there is no entry fee to
win and no other form of payment is required from participants.  Prizes
(e.g., big screen tv, camcorder) will be awarded based upon highest points
accumulated.

I have asked each of you to research any prohibitions on such a game in the
following jurisdictions:

Jim:  Canada
Anne:  Japan
David:  Australia

I need to know if these jurisdictions impose any restrictions on such a
game.  Can we make the game available to all EnronOnline customers in each of
these jurisdictions?  What, if any, procedures and/or requirements must we
meet in order to offer the game?  If we cannot permit certain jurisdictional
residents to participate, can we still post the game if we include adequate
disclaimers?

The game will be launched during the first week of September, so your prompt
response will be most appreciated.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Regards,

Leslie Hansen
(713) 853-6121


Start Date: 1/12/02; HourAhead hour: 23;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final Schedules\2002011223.txt


As mentioned during our phone call, the attached diagram illustrates the manner in which the ENE net operating loss was compartmentalized.  SHD.


Welcome to Enron Center South. As you have probably already noticed, things look a little different here. We wanted to orientate you to your new environment and inform you about the future technology coming on-line in the coming weeks.

Occupancy Guidebook To Enron Center South
You will find this handy guide on your desk; it contains information concerning the enhanced printer environment, the new easy access keyboards and telephony procedures.

NEC Monitors
The NEC monitors have an internal anti-glare screen to help reduce eye strain and eliminate the need to install an additional screen cover.  Additionally, an integrated speaker has been installed on one monitor for each desk.

Turret Users
An "Alliance MX turret quick reference guide" has been placed on your desk; this includes important information about the new features such as "Caller ID" and "Voicemail Indication".

Increased Information Access
There are many NEC 50" Plasma screens installed on the 5th and 6th floors.  While many of these will be displaying information designed for the specific unit, others will be displaying various television channels.  The audio to these television channels can be accessed via any of your telephony equipment.  Here's how:

Ten audio channels have been set up for access from your either your Avaya telephone, Stentophon, or IPC Turret.  The channels have been defined on Page 15 of your Turret.  To access the audio from either your Avaya or Stentophon, simply dial the extensions shown in the table below:

Channel	Avaya	Stentophon
Weather Channel	12401	801
CNN Headlines News	12402	802
CNN Financial News	12403	803
CNBC	12404	804
MSNBC	12405	805
Bloomberg	12406	806
Financial News Network	12407	807
CNN	12408	808
Fox Sports	12409	809
ESPN1	12410	810

Wireless Telephony
You may notice the cellular phone coverage is not consistent across the floor, and some areas have virtually no coverage at all.  We are implementing a multi-network "in-building" system to provide consistent high quality service for the campus, keeping you in touch while you are on the move.

Wireless LAN
The infrastructure to support Wireless LAN technology is in place and is being tested. We will be implementing multi level encryption and security to keep our intellectual property safe from eavesdroppers or hackers.

Amtel Replacement
As a move to provide a more flexible "Plug n Play" environment and to help with the reduced desk footprint, we have replaced the Amtel message boxes with Microsoft Exchange Instant Messaging. The Global Messaging Team is testing additional software products to provide some of the features not available with Exchange Instant Messaging; these include one-touch response keys, external LED display, and printing.  Updates will be provided as they become available.

Keeping an Open forum
We will keep you informed of the changes and developments as the migration to the building continues, please feel free to respond with any comments, queries or suggestions to  mailto:Enron.Center.South.Technology@enron.com


Dave

I have marked up the documents to include Marly's and my comments. I have
also included suggested wording for the disclaimers.

Regards

Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave.Samuels@enron.com [mailto:Dave.Samuels@enron.com]
Sent: 07 June 2000 17:12
To: marly.didizian@linklaters.com; Justin.Boyd@enron.com;
Mark.Taylor@enron.com
Cc: nick.west@linklaters.com
Subject: Euro 2000 Proposed Site Nav. and Language

I have attached two documents that describe how to play Minute Mania, and
the proposed navigation and language for the contest site.  Please add the
appropriate language that we would like to see, and return comments to me
as soon as possible so that we can increase the probability of success when
we see the site for approval Friday morning.

thanks
Dave

(See attached file: MinuteMania-pagelayout commentsNM&DS.doc)

(See attached file: Minute Mania-howtoplay comments NM&DS.doc)

____________________________________________________________

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or
otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal
rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us know
by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not
copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
____________________________________________________________

 - Minute Mania-howtoplay comments NMDS - (amended).lnk
 - MinuteMania-pagelayout commentsNMDS - (amended).lnk


Greetings:
Left you a voicemail.  We spoke recently about getting a device to record
temperature on my property in Mendocino, where I'm hoping to grow a few
grapes.  Had a couple of questions about soil testing.  Could you give me a
call when you have a minute at 415.782.7822.  Greatly appreciated.

Best,
Jeff


eThink Stuff For Sale!
That's right; get your very own eThink apparel, accessories and office
gadgets at the Signature Shop online.  Direct your web browser to the
Signature Shop, and then click "eThink Merchandise" to see the complete
line.  Happy shopping!

eSpeak is back!  Tuesday, December 5 at 10:00 am Houston time, please join
Chairman and CEO Ken Lay for an open-mike eSpeak event.  This is your last
chance of the year to ask Ken questions about the issues most important to
you.  Don't miss it!


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 11/14/2000
05:22 PM ---------------------------

Amitava Dhar@ENRON
11/14/2000 03:45 PM
To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT, Vasant Shanbhogue/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Writeup on methodology for Bankruptcy Swap Pricing Regression Model

This is the first draft.  Please let me know if you want me make changes.


Let's go ahead and match these offers. Could you also get some kind of
confirmation from TCO that this happened?

Scott.Goodell@enron.com on 08/01/2000 02:48:20 PM
Please respond to Scott.Goodell@enron.com

To: Jeffrey Porter/CES/ColumbiaGas@COLUMBIAGAS
cc: Chris.Germany@enron.com
Subject: Re:

August 3 at 8am CST is the deadline.

Scott Goodell
07/24/2000 08:25 AM

To:   jporte1@columbiaenergygroup.com
cc:   Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject:

Jeff - Two bids have been received on the following contacts, so the 15 day
clock started on 7/19.
Contract  Parcel         Volume          Rate
61838          29555          1000       5.172
65418          29558             500          5.171
Call me.
Scott


I have received the Unanimous Written Consent of the Board of Directors of
Enron North America Corp. dated 11/10/99 appointing Dale Neuner and Robert
Shults as agents and attorneys-in-fact to execute Password Applications on
behalf of the Company  for online trading.  The original Consent will be sent
to Kate Cole for inclusion in the corporate minute book and copies will be
sent to Dale and Bob.

When signing the Password Applications, Dale and Bob should sign them as
"Agent and Attorney-in-Fact".  In the absence of Dale or Bob, any V.P. or
above can sign Password Applications (with initials from Legal).

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.


If you cannot read today's e-Journal, please visit this link:?
http://www.michbar.org/e-journal/051701.html Or to receive a plain text
version, please send an e-mail to lyris@lists.michbar.org? In the body,
type:? unsubscribe ejournal and on the next line type:? subscribe
ejournal-text

[IMAGE]

Ad 1

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

The  e-Journal is available to members of the State Bar of Michigan at no
additional  charge thanks in part to the generous support of our advertisers.
Please  be sure to support these State Bar partners and visit their Internet
sites  frequently for information about their products and services.  	?

		[IMAGE]

		State  Bar of Michigan e-Journal for Thursday, May 17, 2001

		?qlink

		?Use  our specifically designed hypertext links --Quicklinks --  to jump to
the desired area of today's
		e-Journal

		?cases
		Cases  affecting the following practice areas are summarized  in today's
e-Journal:

		Administrative Law
		Civil  Rights
		Constitutional  Law
		Construction Law
		Corrections
		Criminal  Law
		Employment  & Labor Law
		Family Law
		Litigation
		Municipal
		Negligence  & Intentional Tort
		Real  Property

		Special  Notes: Today's e-Journal includes summaries of four  Michigan
Supreme Court opinions and six Michigan Court of  Appeals published opinions
in the following practice areas:  Administrative Law, Civil Rights,
Constitutional Law, Construction  Law, Employment & Labor Law, Family Law,
Litigation,  Negligence & Intentional Tort, and Real Property.

		Due  to technical difficulties, a summary of the Supreme Court  decision in
Bolt v City of Lansing will appear in  tomorrow's e-Journal.

		[IMAGE]

		?editorial
		Please click  here to read today's Other  Editorial
		[IMAGE]

		Tell  Us What You Think
		Visit Our New Townhall Forum Electronic Bulletin Board

		Amendment  of Local Court Rules 2.100 and 8.108 of the Wayne Circuit  Court,
and Repeal of Local Court Rules 2.301, 2.401 and  2.503

		?classified
		Listings  in the following areas are in today's Classified  Section:

		Confidential  Records Destruction
		Expert  Witness
		Lawsuit  Financials
		Legal  Research
		Office  Space Available
		Positions  Available
		Services

		?fieldspractice

		Need  to refer a case? See today's Fields of Practice  Listings:

		ADR/Arbitration/Mediation

		Administrative  Law
		Adoption

		Alternative  Dispute Resolution

		Antitrust/Advertising/Trade  Regulation

		Appeals

		Appellate  Law

		Automotive  Warranty Law

		Business  & Taxation

		Construction  Law

		Copyrights

		Criminal  Law

		Environmental  Law

		Family  Law

		Federal  False Claims (Qui Tam) Actions
		Health  Law

		Hospital  & Medical Negligence

		Immigration  & Naturalization

		Immigration  Law

		Insurance  Law

		Intellectual  Property Law

		Labor  & Employment Law

		Litigation

		Medical  Malpractice

		Real  Estate

		Special  Education Law

		Tax  Litigation & Disputes

		Transportation  Law

		Worker's  Compensation

		?newsandmoves

		See  this week's News  & Moves for information about your colleagues:

		barevents?

		See  today's  Bar  Events section for news about upcoming programs and
activities:

		Criminal  Law Brown Bag "Therapeutic Drug Court"
		Eighth  Trailblazers Dinner

		case  summaries

		Administrative Law

		Back               to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Registration fees for interstate motor carriers under the 1991
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA); Whether  effect of
reciprocity agreements must be considered in determining  amount of fee
charged or collected on November 15, 1991; Interstate  Commerce Commission
(ICC)
		Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name:? Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. State of Michigan
		e-Journal  Number:? 10238
		Judge(s):?  Weaver, Corrigan, Taylor, Young, Jr., and Markman; Dissent )
Kelly; Dissent ) Cavanagh

		In an issue  of first impression in any state court, the court held that
under  the plain language of the ISTEA, reciprocity agreements were
irrelevant  in determining what registration fees were charged or collected
as of November 15, 1991. Plaintiff alleged that defendants collected
registration fees in excess of the amount allowed under ISTEA, contending
that Michigan could not alter its reciprocity agreements because  these were
frozen at their November 15, 1991 levels. The court declined  to defer to the
ICC,s interpretation banning states from charging  registration fees in
excess of preexisting reciprocal discounts.  The court determined that the
plain meaning of the ISTEA was clear  and applied the statute as written
without reaching the agency interpretation.  The ISTEA itself referred only
to the fees collected or charged,  and contained no reference to reciprocity
agreements. The court  concluded that it must look at the generic fee
Michigan charged  or collected from carriers as of November 15, 1991, not at
the fees  paid by plaintiff in any given year. Reversed and remanded.

		Justice Kelly,  dissenting, disagreed with the conclusion that reciprocity
agreements  were not relevant to determining the registration fees that
Michigan  charged and would have affirmed the decisions of the Court of
Appeals  and Court of Claims in favor of plaintiff.

		Justice Cavanagh,  also dissenting, likewise found the statutory language
ambiguous  and that the ICC permissibly construed it in taking into account
reciprocity agreements.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Civil  Rights

		Back               to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law

		Issues:?  Whether an alleged adverse employment action against an employee
on the basis of her former intimate relationship with her supervisor
presented a cognizable claim of sex discrimination under the CRA;  Quid pro
quo sexual harassment; Hostile work environment;  Respondeat superior; Sex
discrimination; Breach of contract;  Intentional infliction of emotional
distress
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Corley v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.
		e-Journal  Number: 10218
		Judge(s):?  Neff, Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen

		In  an issue of first impression regarding whether alleged adverse
employment  action against an employee on the basis of her former intimate
relationship  with her supervisor presents a cognizable claim of sex
discrimination  under the CRA, the court held that it does.  Therefore,
summary disposition of plaintiff,s sexual harassment  claim in favor of
defendants was improper. Plaintiff alleged that  she was subjected to a
hostile work environment, sexual harassment,  disparate treatment, and
unlawful termination because of her sex  and her prior relationship with
defendant-Smith. Plaintiff established  sufficient facts to survive a motion
for summary disposition under  either quid pro quo sexual harassment or
hostile work environment.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law

		Issues:  Alleged discrimination based on race and marital status; The  CRA
statute of limitations; Wrongful discharge; Failure to timely  initiate an
appeal of an administrative agency's final decision  to the circuit court;
Constitutional issues not within the agency's  jurisdiction may be raised in
the circuit court through the Administrative  Procedures Act (APA) review
procedure
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name: Womack-Scott v. Department of Corrections
		e-Journal  Number: 10219
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Doctoroff, Hoekstra, and Markey

		Since the plaintiff-former  employee failed to bring her CRA claims within
three years of the  date of her initial discharge for violation of one of
defendant's  work rules, the trial court properly granted summary
disposition  to defendant. Plaintiff argued that the trial court used the
wrong  date when calculating the limitation period and should have used  the
last day she was employed by defendant. Although plaintiff was  technically
reinstated for a period of time as a result of administrative  decisions and
again discharged, the court disagreed that the second  and final discharge
should apply for purposes of calculating the  limitations period.
Accordingly, plaintiff's race and marital status  discrimination claims
accrued on the date of her initial discharge  that was for allegedly
discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff's wrongful  discharge claim was also
properly dismissed by the trial court because  plaintiff failed to appeal the
final administrative decision to  the circuit court within the 60-day time
limitation provided by  the APA. Affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law

		Issues:?  Age, gender, and race discrimination; Retaliation
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Jones v. Wayne State Univ.
		e-Journal  Number: 10195
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam ) Bandstra, Zahra, and Meter

		Plaintiff,s  claims of age, gender, and race discrimination were properly
dismissed.  Plaintiff, a 55-year old African-American female, alleged that
her  reassignment was motivated by defendant-employer,s administrators,
desire to assemble a young, Caucasian male staff. Plaintiff alleged  that a
statement by defendant,s manager was direct evidence defendant  discriminated
against her based on age. However, at most, plaintiff,s  testimony
established that defendant,s manager observed that the  department was made
up of young, inexperienced employees. Further,  plaintiff,s subjective
impressions of her reassignment as a dead-end  job were insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of  discrimination. Plaintiff,s discriminatory
replacement arguments  based on gender and race failed because she was not
replaced by  a nonmember of the protected class. Summary disposition in
favor  of the defendant was affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Constitutional Law

		Back               to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Real Property

		Issues:  The constitutionality of the Opening of Private Roads and Temporary
Highways Act (the Private Roads Act (MCL 229.1 et seq.));  Whether the act
authorizes a taking primarily benefiting a private  rather than a public
purpose; Overruling Bieker v. Suttons Bay  Twp. Supervisor and McKeighan v.
Grass Lake Twp. Supervisor  II
		Court:  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name: Tolksdorf v. Griffith
		e-Journal  Number: 10240
		Judge(s):  Kelly, Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Taylor, Young, Jr.; Not
participating  - Markman

		The court struck  down the Private Roads Act (allowing a private landowner to
petition  a township supervisor to open a private road across another
landowner's  property) as providing for an unconstitutional taking under
art.  10, o 2 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, because it authorizes  a
taking that primarily benefits a private rather than a public  purpose.
Plaintiffs owned landlocked property and defendants owned  a neighboring
parcel. Defendants refused plaintiffs' requests seeking  a paved road across
their parcel and an easement for utility lines.  Plaintiffs sued requesting a
writ of mandamus compelling the township  supervisor to proceed under the
act. The trial court ruled against  plaintiffs and the Court of Appeals found
error in the refusal to  issue the writ. The court concluded that since the
act gives individuals  a permanent and continuous right to pass over
another's property,  it allowed a permanent physical occupation of private
property by  means of government action, and was a taking. The taking
authorized  by the act appeared to merely be an attempt by a private entity
to use the state's powers to acquire what it could not get through  arms'
length negotiations with defendants, and the primary benefit  inured to the
landlocked private owners, rather than the public.  Reversed and the trial
court's ruling for defendants was reinstated.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Construction Law

		Back               to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Statute of limitations for civil claims brought under the Michigan
builder,s trust fund act; Accrual of civil claims under builder,s  trust fund
act
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? DiPonio Constr. Co., Inc. v. Rosati Masonry Co., Inc.
		e-Journal  Number:? 10217
		Judge(s):?  Smolenski, Zahra, and Gage

		In an issue  of first impression, the court ruled that the six-year statute
of  limitations found in MCL 600.5813 applies to civil claims brought  under
the Michigan builder,s trust act therefore, the trial court  erred in
dismissing plaintiff-subcontractor,s action on the basis  it was time-barred.
Applying analysis found in case precedent, the  court concluded that when a
statute itself does not provide a limitation  period, a cause of action
arising from a statutory violation is  subject to the six-year limitation
period found in o 5813. Plaintiff,s  claim accrued when defendants were paid
on the project and defendants  failed to pay plaintiff the amounts due on
that project. Reversed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Negligence & Intentional Tort

		Issues:?  Retained control over the construction project; Immunity under the
exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA; Reliance on the Supreme  Court,s
plurality opinion in Bitar v.Wakim; Expert,s testimony  on the vibration from
a bulldozer theory; Duty to warn
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Piraine v. BDP Dev.
		e-Journal  Number: 10192
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam- Griffin, Holbrook, Jr., and Murphy

		The court corrected  a clerical error and ordered that the final paragraph of
the earlier  opinion (see e-Journal  # 10080 in the 5/3/01 edition) be
stricken and replaced  with the following language: &The lower court,s orders
denying summary  disposition are affirmed and the matter is remanded for
further  proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain
jurisdiction.8  The opinion remained the same in all other respects. The
earlier  release date was vacated.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Corrections

		Back               to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Parole; Legitimate reasons for parole board to deny parole to  a
prisoner assessed with only an average probability of parole
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Searles v. Parole Bd.
		e-Journal  Number:? 10210
		Judge(s):?  Memorandum ) Gage, Cavanagh, and Wilder

		Defendant-parole  board did not abuse its discretion in denying parole to
plaintiff,  a prisoner assessed with only an average probability of parole,
and the trial court erred in reversing the parole board,s decision.  The
parole board identified several legitimate reasons for denying  plaintiff
parole, including (1) the type of crime (CSC II), (2)  the identity of the
victim, (3) plaintiff,s unstable domestic and  employment histories, and (4)
her inability to follow rules, reflected  in her misconduct record. The trial
court,s order was reversed and  the parole board,s decision denying parole
was reinstated.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Criminal  Law

		Back               to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Sufficiency of evidence to support conviction of third-degree
fleeing  or eluding a police officer; Alleged police brutality
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? People v. Buchanan
		e-Journal  Number: 10198
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Gage, Cavanagh, and Wilder

		There was sufficient  evidence to support defendant,s conviction of
third-degree fleeing  or eluding a police officer. Defendant argued that the
evidence  failed to show that he refused to obey a clear signal to stop his
vehicle. The evidence showed that defendant continued to drive at  a high
rate of speed, even after a marked police vehicle activated  its overhead
lights, and that defendant only pulled into a parking  lot because two police
vehicles blocked his path. The evidence also  demonstrated that defendant was
driving with an unlawful blood alcohol  level, had a suspended license, and
was a parole absconder, which  supported an inference that he was
intentionally trying to evade  the police. Affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:  Whether the trial court's refusal to give the requested instruction
on the lesser included offense of larceny from a person was harmless  error;
The Carines/Olano plain error rule
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: People v. Davidson
		e-Journal  Number: 10187
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Holbrook, Jr. and McDonald; Dissent - Wilder

		Since the erroneous  unarmed robbery instructions seriously affected the
fairness, integrity,  or public reputation of judicial proceedings
independent of the  defendant's innocence and the error was not harmless,
defendant's  conviction of two counts of unarmed robbery was reversed and
the  case remanded for a new trial. The prosecution conceded that the  trial
court erred in refusing to give the requested instruction  on the lesser
included offense of larceny from a person, but argued  that the error had a
negligible effect on the outcome of the case  and was harmless. The court
disagreed because the jury was improperly  instructed on the crime of unarmed
robbery, the crime for which  defendant was convicted, and specific intent.
The court could not  conclude that the jury's verdict would have been the
same had it  been given the proper instruction for unarmed robbery. The
court  also concluded that the instructions given by the trial court
conflated  the crime of unarmed robbery and accessory after the fact.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Motion for a new trial; Whether complainant,s recanting affidavit
was newly discovered evidence; Whether defendant demonstrated a  miscarriage
of justice; Whether constitutional rights were violated;  Waiver of trial by
jury
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? People v. Felder
		e-Journal  Number: 10201
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly

		Defendant,s  motion for a new trial was properly denied because complainant,
s  affidavit recanting her testimony was unreliable. The record relating  to
the circumstances immediately preceding complainant,s recantation  supported
the trial court,s finding that defendant engaged in inappropriate  and
harassing behavior toward complainant, which indicated that  defendant
coerced the complainant,s recanting testimony. The record  indicated that
defendant contacted the complainant four times by  telephone, followed her in
her vehicle, confronted her in the presence  of her children, and drove by
her home. The complainant testified  that she was afraid, that she agreed to
recant her trial testimony  because she wanted no further contact with
defendant, and wanted  him to stop harassing her. Defendant,s conviction of
assault with  a dangerous weapon was affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:  Whether defendant revoked his waiver of rights and unambiguously
requested an attorney; Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions  of
second-degree murder and felony-firearm; Whether defendant had  a
constitutional right to present witnesses at the preliminary examination
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: People v. Harris
		e-Journal  Number: 10202
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Gage, Cavanagh, and Wilder

		Since conduct  and silence do not constitute an assertion of the right to
remain  silent, the trial court did not err by admitting defendant's
statements  made after he placed his hand over a question on the police
officer's  statement form and told the officer, "don't write that".  After
being informed of his Miranda rights before questioning  began, defendant
chose to voluntarily answer questions. Defendant  answered the first nine
questions, however after initially answering  the next question, he put his
hand over the question on the form  and asked the officer not to write down
his response because it  was untruthful. Defendant did not answer two more
questions he was  asked, then informed the officer he would not answer any
more questions,  and wanted an attorney. Defendant claimed that his act of
placing  his hand over the statement form and telling the officer not to
write down his response constituted an assertion of the Fifth Amendment
right to remain silent and revoked his previous waiver of that right.  The
court disagreed because it was not until after the officer asked  two
subsequent questions, that defendant verbally and unambiguously  invoked his
right to an attorney. Affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:  Sufficiency of evidence to convict of first-degree felony murder
and felony-firearm; Failure to instruct on lesser included offenses;
Distinction between lesser included offense and a cognate lesser  included
offense; Prosecutorial misconduct; Jury instructions on  stricken testimony;
Ineffective assistance of counsel
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: People v. Williams
		e-Journal  Number: 10193
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Kelly, Smolenski, and Meter

		Even in the  absence of direct evidence identifying defendant as the
perpetrator,  the circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences from it
were  sufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant knew the victim's
daily routine of leaving for work about 5:00 a.m., knew of the victim's
habit of carrying large sums of money, and thus shot and ultimately  killed
the victim while attempting to rob him. At 5:03 a.m., the  victim's widow
heard a gunshot, discovered her husband outside with  a gunshot in the neck,
and that his wallet was missing. A neighbor  saw defendant leave her house,
where he lived, just before the shooting.  Another neighbor saw defendant
walking very fast down the street  right after the shooting. A gunshot
residue test performed about  three hours after the shooting revealed that
defendant had residue  on his hands and that the residue came from a gun
being fired. Affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Employment & Labor Law

		Back               to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Family Law

		Issues:?  Whether certain categories of payments made by defendant to its
employees constituted &earnings8 within the meaning of the Federal  Consumer
Credit Protection Act (CCPA); Support and Parenting Time  Enforcement Act
(SPTEA)
		Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name:? Genesee County Friend of the Court v. General Motors  Corp.
		e-Journal  Number: 10241
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Taylor, Young,
Jr.,  and Markman

		The  court held that all categories of payments (profit-sharing, recognition
awards, and signing bonuses) made by defendant to its employees  constituted
&earnings8 within the meaning of CCPA and are subject  to a limitation on the
amount that may be captured by income withholding  orders under SPTEA. The
lower courts held that profit-sharing payments  and recognition awards were
not earnings, but that signing bonus  payments were. After receiving the
income withholding orders, defendant  paid to the Friend of the Court 50% of
the disposable earnings because  it believed that the category of payments at
issue were subject  to the federal percentage limits on garnishment. The
judgments of  the Court of Appeals and the circuit court were reversed in
part,  and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Civil Rights

		Issues:?  Whether an alleged adverse employment action against an employee
on the basis of her former intimate relationship with her supervisor
presented a cognizable claim of sex discrimination under the CRA;  Quid pro
quo sexual harassment; Hostile work environment;  Respondeat superior; Sex
discrimination; Breach of contract;  Intentional infliction of emotional
distress
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Corley v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.
		e-Journal  Number: 10218
		Judge(s):?  Neff, Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen

		In  an issue of first impression regarding whether alleged adverse
employment  action against an employee on the basis of her former intimate
relationship  with her supervisor presents a cognizable claim of sex
discrimination  under the CRA, the court held that it does.  Therefore,
summary disposition of plaintiff,s sexual harassment  claim in favor of
defendants was improper. Plaintiff alleged that  she was subjected to a
hostile work environment, sexual harassment,  disparate treatment, and
unlawful termination because of her sex  and her prior relationship with
defendant-Smith. Plaintiff established  sufficient facts to survive a motion
for summary disposition under  either quid pro quo sexual harassment or
hostile work environment.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Civil Rights

		Issues:  Alleged discrimination based on race and marital status; The  CRA
statute of limitations; Wrongful discharge; Failure to timely  initiate an
appeal of an administrative agency's final decision  to the circuit court;
Constitutional issues not within the agency's  jurisdiction may be raised in
the circuit court through the Administrative  Procedures Act (APA) review
procedure
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name: Womack-Scott v. Department of Corrections
		e-Journal  Number: 10219
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Doctoroff, Hoekstra, and Markey

		Since the plaintiff-former  employee failed to bring her CRA claims within
three years of the  date of her initial discharge for violation of one of
defendant's  work rules, the trial court properly granted summary
disposition  to defendant. Plaintiff argued that the trial court used the
wrong  date when calculating the limitation period and should have used  the
last day she was employed by defendant. Although plaintiff was  technically
reinstated for a period of time as a result of administrative  decisions and
again discharged, the court disagreed that the second  and final discharge
should apply for purposes of calculating the  limitations period.
Accordingly, plaintiff's race and marital status  discrimination claims
accrued on the date of her initial discharge  that was for allegedly
discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff's wrongful  discharge claim was also
properly dismissed by the trial court because  plaintiff failed to appeal the
final administrative decision to  the circuit court within the 60-day time
limitation provided by  the APA. Affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Civil Rights

		Issues:?  Age, gender, and race discrimination; Retaliation
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Jones v. Wayne State Univ.
		e-Journal  Number: 10195
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam ) Bandstra, Zahra, and Meter

		Plaintiff,s  claims of age, gender, and race discrimination were properly
dismissed.  Plaintiff, a 55-year old African-American female, alleged that
her  reassignment was motivated by defendant-employer,s administrators,
desire to assemble a young, Caucasian male staff. Plaintiff alleged  that a
statement by defendant,s manager was direct evidence defendant  discriminated
against her based on age. However, at most, plaintiff,s  testimony
established that defendant,s manager observed that the  department was made
up of young, inexperienced employees. Further,  plaintiff,s subjective
impressions of her reassignment as a dead-end  job were insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of  discrimination. Plaintiff,s discriminatory
replacement arguments  based on gender and race failed because she was not
replaced by  a nonmember of the protected class. Summary disposition in
favor  of the defendant was affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Litigation

		Issues:  Whether the trial court erred in affirming the arbitration award
because the arbitrators? exceeded their authority; Whether defendants
breached the employment agreement (EA); Interpretation of the EA  and related
documents; Whether the trial court erred in refusing  to award statutory
interest from the date of the arbitration award;  Whether plaintiffs were
entitled to 12% interest because the arbitration  award was rendered on a
written instrument; Economic development  commission (EDC)
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: Young v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
		e-Journal  Number: 10190
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Collins, Jansen, and White

		The arbitrators  did not exceed their authority when they issued the
arbitration  award against the defendant-tribe EDC for breach of plaintiff's
EA, therefore the trial court did not err in confirming the award.
Defendants argued that the joint venture master agreement, which  was signed
by the tribe EDC, contained an arbitration provision  and a waiver of
sovereign immunity, but contended that the arbitrators  did not have
authority to decide whether the tribe EDC breached  the EA because the tribe
EDC did not sign the EA and was not a party  to it. The court concluded that
when the various documents, which  referred to each other, were read together
the parties intended  that the documents be construed as one agreement.
Accordingly, a  breach of the EA constituted a breach of the joint venture
master  agreement, the claim was subject to arbitration, and the tribe EDC
could be held liable for the breach. Affirmed, but remanded for  modification
of the judgment to include post-arbitration award interest  at 12%.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Family Law

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law

		Issues:?  Whether certain categories of payments made by defendant to its
employees constituted &earnings8 within the meaning of the Federal  Consumer
Credit Protection Act (CCPA); Support and Parenting Time  Enforcement Act
(SPTEA)
		Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name:? Genesee County Friend of the Court v. General Motors  Corp.
		e-Journal  Number: 10241
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Taylor, Young,
Jr.,  and Markman

		The  court held that all categories of payments (profit-sharing, recognition
awards, and signing bonuses) made by defendant to its employees  constituted
&earnings8 within the meaning of CCPA and are subject  to a limitation on the
amount that may be captured by income withholding  orders under SPTEA. The
lower courts held that profit-sharing payments  and recognition awards were
not earnings, but that signing bonus  payments were. After receiving the
income withholding orders, defendant  paid to the Friend of the Court 50% of
the disposable earnings because  it believed that the category of payments at
issue were subject  to the federal percentage limits on garnishment. The
judgments of  the Court of Appeals and the circuit court were reversed in
part,  and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Divorce; Judicial review of property division award rendered
pursuant to binding arbitration; Alimony in gross as property division;
Arbitration award providing that if sum certain awarded to spouse  is not
paid it shall be considered spousal support and nondischargeable  in
bankruptcy; Arbitrator,s factual findings; Whether arbitrator  violated
Michigan law
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Krist v. Krist
		e-Journal  Number:? 10220
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly

		Defendant-spouse  did not satisfy the exacting &manifest disregard of the
law8 standard  required for judicial intervention in a property division
award  issued after binding arbitration and incorporated into the parties,
divorce judgment. Defendant argued that the arbitration decision  contained
an award of spousal support in contravention of the settlement  agreement.
The offending paragraph in the award actually provided  for a lump sum
payment, or alimony in gross, which was in the nature  of the division of
property and was completely consistent with the  parties, binding arbitration
and settlement agreement. The court  also found no error with the arbitrator,
s provision that if the  sum certain awarded to plaintiff was not paid, that
amount would  be considered spousal support and nondischargeable in
bankruptcy.  The language employed in the award was a mechanism to frustrate
any attempt by defendant to circumvent the property division by  filing for
bankruptcy and discharging the obligation owed to plaintiff.  Affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Divorce; Marital assets; Whether the trial court invaded
defendant's  separate property; Pre-marital agreement; Spousal support;
Whether  plaintiff's first husband should share in the burden of the spousal
support award
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Cowen v. Cowen
		e-Journal  Number: 10204
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Wilder, Cavanagh, Hood

		The trial court  properly held that the parties, home and Florida condominium
were  part of the marital estate. It was undisputed that both the home  and
condominium were purchased after the parties married. Defendant  testified
that plaintiff was a joint owner of the marital home and  that he intended
the condominium to be owed jointly between them,  which showed that defendant
intended that plaintiff be the joint  owner of the properties. By adding
plaintiff,s name to each deed  of title, defendant willingly included both
properties in the marital  estate, therefore whether plaintiff helped
acquire, improve, or  accumulate the property was irrelevant. Affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:  Termination of parental rights; Alleged denial of right to jury
trial
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: In re Curry
		e-Journal  Number: 10212
		Judge(s):  Memorandum - McDonald, Smolenski, and Kelly

		Since the respondent-father  had notice of the proceedings but chose to
remain uninvolved until  after the adjudication, and waited until the
termination hearing  to request a jury, the trial court did not err in
denying his request  for a jury trial. The trial court's order terminating
respondent's  parental rights was affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:  Termination of parental rights; Whether release of parental  rights
should be revoked; Failure to petition the family court to  revoke release
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: In re Kelly
		e-Journal  Number: 10211
		Judge(s):  Memorandum - McDonald, Smolenski, and Kelly

		Since the respondent-mother  failed to petition the family court to revoke
her release of parental  rights, the issue was not properly before the court.
The court affirmed  the family court's order terminating respondent's
parental rights  to one of the children following her voluntary release of
parental  rights pursuant to MCL 710.29.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Litigation

		Back               to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Negligence & Intentional Tort

		Issues:?  Alleged negligence by violating state and local law in providing
alcohol to minors; Jury instruction regarding the impairment defense;
Failure to strike plaintiff,s testimony regarding her percentage  of fault;
Failing to cure the violation of plaintiff,s substantial  rights when defense
counsel improperly referred to a fee agreement  and improperly elicited
testimony from police officers that had  been excluded
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Piccalo v. Nix
		e-Journal  Number: 10215
		Judge(s):?  Hood and McDonald; Dissent ) Zahra

		The  trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the impairment
defense because it would be absurd to allow the defense of impairment  to an
individual who caused or created the impairment of the injured  person. Due
to the cumulative effect of errors regarding the trial  court,s rulings there
was cumulative prejudice. Plaintiff, a passenger  in a van where there were
only two seats, laid or sat in the back  of the van and was injured by tires
inside the van, when the driver,  an underage drinker, who was served alcohol
at defendant,s home,  failed to manipulate a slight curve in the gravel road
and drove  the van into a tree. The case was reversed and remanded for a new
trial.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law

		Issues:  Whether the trial court erred in affirming the arbitration award
because the arbitrators? exceeded their authority; Whether defendants
breached the employment agreement (EA); Interpretation of the EA  and related
documents; Whether the trial court erred in refusing  to award statutory
interest from the date of the arbitration award;  Whether plaintiffs were
entitled to 12% interest because the arbitration  award was rendered on a
written instrument; Economic development  commission (EDC)
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: Young v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
		e-Journal  Number: 10190
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Collins, Jansen, and White

		The arbitrators  did not exceed their authority when they issued the
arbitration  award against the defendant-tribe EDC for breach of plaintiff's
EA, therefore the trial court did not err in confirming the award.
Defendants argued that the joint venture master agreement, which  was signed
by the tribe EDC, contained an arbitration provision  and a waiver of
sovereign immunity, but contended that the arbitrators  did not have
authority to decide whether the tribe EDC breached  the EA because the tribe
EDC did not sign the EA and was not a party  to it. The court concluded that
when the various documents, which  referred to each other, were read together
the parties intended  that the documents be construed as one agreement.
Accordingly, a  breach of the EA constituted a breach of the joint venture
master  agreement, the claim was subject to arbitration, and the tribe EDC
could be held liable for the breach. Affirmed, but remanded for  modification
of the judgment to include post-arbitration award interest  at 12%.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Municipal

		Back               to Quicklinks

		This  summary also appears under Real Property

		Issues:  Circuit court order compelling city to approve site plan for  a fast
food restaurant; Writ of mandamus; Superintending control;  Decision
involving discretionary authority; Decision based on competent,  material,
and substantial evidence; Insufficient stacking spaces  to support
drive-through windows; Traffic study report; Absence  of clear right to legal
performance
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Kanakry v. City of St. Clair Shores
		e-Journal  Number:? 10194
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly

		The court could  not uphold the trial court,s order compelling defendants to
approve  plaintiffs-property owners, site plan for a McDonald,s restaurant
because the decision to deny approval of the plan involved discretionary
authority and was supported by competent, material, and substantial
evidence. The trial court erred by issuing a writ of mandamus instead  of an
order for superintending control, but this was not the basis  for reversal.
Plaintiffs, site plan only provided for 9 stacking  spaces, but 14 were
required for plaintiffs to have two drive-through  windows. This
nonconformance with the zoning ordinance alone was  sufficient for defendants
to deny the site plan. Defendants also  found that the deficient number of
stacking spaces would create  a traffic hazard and cause an unduly harmful
impact on the city  as a whole. Reversed and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Negligence & Intentional Tort

		Back               to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Premises liability; Whether the volunteer doctrine barred plaintiff,
s  premises liability action
		Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name:? James v. Albert
		e-Journal  Number: 10239
		Judge(s):?  Taylor, Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Young, Jr., and
Markman

		The  court abolished the volunteer doctrine and agreed, but for different
reasons, with the Court of Appeals that this doctrine did not bar  plaintiff,
s claim, and affirmed reversal of the trial court,s grant  of summary
disposition for defendant. The court returned this area  of the law to
traditional agency and tort principles, because it  believed that they will
better resolve the matters to which the  doctrine might have applied.
Plaintiff incurred injuries while assisting  defendant in digging a trench on
defendant,s property. The parties  disagreed about whether defendant invited
plaintiff to assist him  in digging the trench. Affirmed, and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Litigation

		Issues:?  Alleged negligence by violating state and local law in providing
alcohol to minors; Jury instruction regarding the impairment defense;
Failure to strike plaintiff,s testimony regarding her percentage  of fault;
Failing to cure the violation of plaintiff,s substantial  rights when defense
counsel improperly referred to a fee agreement  and improperly elicited
testimony from police officers that had  been excluded
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Piccalo v. Nix
		e-Journal  Number: 10215
		Judge(s):?  Hood and McDonald; Dissent ) Zahra

		The  trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the impairment
defense because it would be absurd to allow the defense of impairment  to an
individual who caused or created the impairment of the injured  person. Due
to the cumulative effect of errors regarding the trial  court,s rulings there
was cumulative prejudice. Plaintiff, a passenger  in a van where there were
only two seats, laid or sat in the back  of the van and was injured by tires
inside the van, when the driver,  an underage drinker, who was served alcohol
at defendant,s home,  failed to manipulate a slight curve in the gravel road
and drove  the van into a tree. The case was reversed and remanded for a new
trial.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Premises liability; Whether plaintiff,s premises liability action
was preempted by the dramshop act; Instructing jury with both SJI2d  19.03
and SJI2d 19.05; Additur; Application of collateral source  rule; Offset for
payment by a codefendant insurer
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Mann v. Shusteric Enters., Inc.
		e-Journal  Number:? 10188
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Kelly, White, and Wilder

		Plaintiff,s  premises liability action against defendant for injuries
sustained  in a slip and fall in the parking lot of defendant,s bar was not
preempted by the dramshop act. Defendant,s service of alcohol was  only
implicated as it related to defendant,s knowledge of plaintiff,s  condition
and whether defendant,s conduct in failing to inspect  or clear the parking
lot and failing to warn plaintiff was reasonable.  The trial court did not
err in instructing the jury with both the  general duty to business invitee
instruction and the duty regarding  natural accumulation of ice and snow
instruction, because the instructions  are not inconsistent. The jury,s
verdict, denying all noneconomic  damages, was inadequate because the jury
ignored an entire category  of damages for which plaintiff produced
uncontroverted evidence.  The trial court abused its discretion in denying
plaintiff,s motion  for additur. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Construction Law

		Issues:?  Retained control over the construction project; Immunity under the
exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA; Reliance on the Supreme  Court,s
plurality opinion in Bitar v.Wakim; Expert,s testimony  on the vibration from
a bulldozer theory; Duty to warn
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Piraine v. BDP Dev.
		e-Journal  Number: 10192
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam- Griffin, Holbrook, Jr., and Murphy

		The court corrected  a clerical error and ordered that the final paragraph of
the earlier  opinion (see e-Journal  # 10080 in the 5/3/01 edition) be
stricken and replaced  with the following language: &The lower court,s orders
denying summary  disposition are affirmed and the matter is remanded for
further  proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain
jurisdiction.8  The opinion remained the same in all other respects. The
earlier  release date was vacated.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Real Property

		Back               to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Constitutional Law

		Issues:  The constitutionality of the Opening of Private Roads and Temporary
Highways Act (the Private Roads Act (MCL 229.1 et seq.));  Whether the act
authorizes a taking primarily benefiting a private  rather than a public
purpose; Overruling Bieker v. Suttons Bay  Twp. Supervisor and McKeighan v.
Grass Lake Twp. Supervisor  II
		Court:  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name: Tolksdorf v. Griffith
		e-Journal  Number: 10240
		Judge(s):  Kelly, Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Taylor, Young, Jr.; Not
participating  - Markman

		The court struck  down the Private Roads Act (allowing a private landowner to
petition  a township supervisor to open a private road across another
landowner's  property) as providing for an unconstitutional taking under
art.  10, o 2 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, because it authorizes  a
taking that primarily benefits a private rather than a public  purpose.
Plaintiffs owned landlocked property and defendants owned  a neighboring
parcel. Defendants refused plaintiffs' requests seeking  a paved road across
their parcel and an easement for utility lines.  Plaintiffs sued requesting a
writ of mandamus compelling the township  supervisor to proceed under the
act. The trial court ruled against  plaintiffs and the Court of Appeals found
error in the refusal to  issue the writ. The court concluded that since the
act gives individuals  a permanent and continuous right to pass over
another's property,  it allowed a permanent physical occupation of private
property by  means of government action, and was a taking. The taking
authorized  by the act appeared to merely be an attempt by a private entity
to use the state's powers to acquire what it could not get through  arms'
length negotiations with defendants, and the primary benefit  inured to the
landlocked private owners, rather than the public.  Reversed and the trial
court's ruling for defendants was reinstated.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:  Whether plaintiff's prior recorded judgment lien had priority  over
defendants' subsequent mortgage interest
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name: Graves v. American Acceptance Mortgage Corp.
		e-Journal  Number: 10216
		Judge(s):  Gage, Sawyer, and Jansen

		Since the subsequent  mortgage constituted a purchase money mortgage, which
takes priority  over earlier creditors' interests even though the earlier
interest  was duly recorded, the trial court erred in concluding that
plaintiff's  earlier recorded judgment lien had priority over defendants'
mortgage  interest. The divorce judgment granted plaintiff a lien on the
property  to the extent of Diaz' (her ex-husband) then existing equitable
title interest in the property as the land contract vendee. The  mortgage
Diaz granted American Acceptance constituted a purchase  money mortgage
because Diaz, who had defaulted on the land contract  payments, utilized the
mortgage proceeds to obtain legal title to  the property by paying off the
land contract vendors. Accordingly,  notwithstanding that plaintiff filed her
judgment lien before the  execution of the Diaz mortgage, the purchase money
mortgage by which  Diaz secured legal title to the property, had priority
over plaintiff's  judgment lien which arose against Diaz prior to his
acquisition  of title to the real estate. The trial court failed to accord
defendants'  purchase money mortgage interest the priority to which it was
entitled  by law. Reversed and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Municipal

		Issues:  Circuit court order compelling city to approve site plan for  a fast
food restaurant; Writ of mandamus; Superintending control;  Decision
involving discretionary authority; Decision based on competent,  material,
and substantial evidence; Insufficient stacking spaces  to support
drive-through windows; Traffic study report; Absence  of clear right to legal
performance
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Kanakry v. City of St. Clair Shores
		e-Journal  Number:? 10194
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly

		The court could  not uphold the trial court,s order compelling defendants to
approve  plaintiffs-property owners, site plan for a McDonald,s restaurant
because the decision to deny approval of the plan involved discretionary
authority and was supported by competent, material, and substantial
evidence. The trial court erred by issuing a writ of mandamus instead  of an
order for superintending control, but this was not the basis  for reversal.
Plaintiffs, site plan only provided for 9 stacking  spaces, but 14 were
required for plaintiffs to have two drive-through  windows. This
nonconformance with the zoning ordinance alone was  sufficient for defendants
to deny the site plan. Defendants also  found that the deficient number of
stacking spaces would create  a traffic hazard and cause an unduly harmful
impact on the city  as a whole. Reversed and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		fields  of practice listings

		ADR/Arbitration/Mediation

		ASHER N.  TILCHIN, a  member of the American College of Civil Trial Mediators
and Michigan  Arbitration and Mediation Association provides mediation for
pre,  early, and matured lawsuits. He has been a successful mediator since
1991. Tilchin also provides arbitration services as a single or  multi-panel
arbitrator. Cases involving construction, real estate,  commercial
transactions, and legal malpractice invited. Asher N.  Tilchin, 31731
Northwestern Hwy., Suite 106, Farmington Hills, MI  48334, (248)855-0995 or
Fax (248) 855-0850, e-mail antilchin@aol.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Administrative  Law

		JAMES R. VIVENTI, James R Viventi PLLC, 3670 Powderhorn  Drive, Okemos, MI
48864-5924, Phone: (517) 381-0670, FAX: (517)  381-0671.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Adoption

		MONICA FARRIS LINKNER, Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz,  PC, 2000 Town
Center, Suite 900, Southfield, MI 48075-1100, Phone:  (248) 746-4011, FAX:
(248) 936-1976, e-mail: mlinkner@s4online.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Alternative  Dispute Resolution

		DONNA CRAIG, Donna Craig & Associates PLC, 999 Haynes Street,  Suite 245,
Birmingham, MI 48009, Phone: (248) 682-7750, FAX: (248)  682-2376, e-mail:
craigassoc@earthlink.net.  Visit www.adr-resource.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Antitrust/Advertising/Trade  Regulation

		DAVID G.  CHARDAVOYNE specializes  in the regulation of business competition,
including: antitrust  law, unfair competition, and the regulation of
advertising, labeling,  and other trade practices. Former Chairperson of
State Bar antitrust  and trade regulation section, more than 15 years'
experience in  this field. Will consult regarding antitrust issues
(monopolies,  mergers, price fixing, exclusive dealing, tying arrangements,
price  discrimination, dealer termination, market allocation); premerger
notice filings under Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; discussions with State  and
Federal regulatory agencies (FTC, Justice Department, Attorney  General);
compliance with laws regulating advertising (substantiation  of claims,
product labels, consumer price displays); and all other  matters relating to
business competition. David G. Chardavoyne,  26755 La Muera Ave., Farmington
Hills, MI 48334-4613, (248) 477-6308,  e-mail chardavoyne@aol.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Appeals

		LAURIE S. LONGO, 214 South Main, Suite 210, Ann Arbor, MI  48104-2122, Phone:
(734) 913-5619, e-mail: 42203@msn.com.  Visit http://michiganappeals.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Appellate  Law

		SAFFORD & BAKER, PLLC, 40900 Woodward Avenue, Suite 110, Bloomfield  Hills,
MI 48304, Phone: (248) 646-9100, FAX: (248) 646-9102. Visit
www.saffordbaker.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Automobile  Warranty Law

		LIBLANG  & ASSOCIATES:  Specializing in "Lemon Law", UCC, Magnuson-Moss,
Odometer  Fraud and Consumer Protection Act. Available for trials,
consultations  or referrals. Cases accepted statewide. Over 17 years and
5,000  cases. Michigan's most experienced lemon law attorneys, Dani K.
Liblang and Scott J. Sinkwitts. Please call (248) 540-9270 or e-mail
NoLemons@aol.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Business  & Taxation

		LAW OFFICES  OF RALPH W. PEZDA.  Oakland County practitioner with an LL.M.
degree in taxation from  New York University will assist your clients or firm
with taxation,  business, interdisciplinary, and white collar criminal
matters.  Referrals paid. 27700 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 411, Southfield,  MI
48034. (248) 352-5632. E-mail address: rwp@cdlcorp.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Construction  Law

		JOHN V.  TOCCO, attorney,  construction engineer, and civil engineering
professor, with over  twenty years experience in the construction industry,
provides mediation  and arbitration services for all construction matters.
Also provides  litigation support and claims analysis. Cases accepted
statewide.  Call (313) 406-2040 for CV, or review Profile at
www.johntocco.com  E-mail john@johntocco.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Copyrights

		CAROL R. SHEPHERD, Arborlaw Associates, PLLC, 320 S Main  St, PO Box 8403,
Ann Arbor, MI 48107-8403, Phone: (734) 668-4646,  FAX: (734) 822-4646,
e-mail: shepherd@arborlaw.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Criminal  Law

		F. RANDALL KARFONTA, Attorney @ Law, 113 North Main, PO  Box 565, Leland, MI
49654, Phone: (231) 256-2200. Visit http://www.leelanau.com  or
http://www.leelanau.com/professional/karfonta.

		Back to Quicklinks

		RAYMOND A. CASSAR, Law Offices of Raymond A. Cassar, 30665  Northwestern Hwy,
Suite 100, Farmington Hills, MI 48334, Phone: (248)  855-0911, FAX: (248)
855-9523, e-mail: rcassar@aol.com.  Additional offices located in Oakland
County (248) 855-0911, and Wayne  County (313) 278-8811. Visit
www.crimlawattorney.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		TALPOS & ARNOLD PC, 2855 Coolidge Road, Suite 109, Troy, MI  48084-3215,
Phone: (248) 643-4515, FAX: (248) 643-4797, e-mail: jctalpos@aol.com.  Visit
www.Mich-Lawyer.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Environmental  Law

		DEAN & FULKERSON, PC, Richard A. Barr, rbarr@dflaw.com  or James K. O'Brien,
jobrien@dflaw.com,  801 W Big Beaver, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084-4767, Phone:
(248) 362-1300,  FAX: (248) 362-1358.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Family  Law

		JOHN G. MAKRIS, 802 E Big Beaver Rd, Troy, MI 48083-1404,  Phone: (248)
528-1811, FAX: (248) 524-0973, e-mail: jgmakris@altavista.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Federal  False Claims (Qui Tam) Actions

		HaronDAVID  HARON represents  whistleblowers in civil false claims actions
and works with referring  attorneys nationwide who specialize in employment
law and other  fields. Under the federal False Claims Act, private
individuals  with knowledge of fraud against federal programs can file suit
on  behalf of the United States and receive a substantial share of any
recovery. Representing such claimants, Mr. Haron has recovered millions  of
dollars in Medicare and Medicaid funds that had been fraudulently  obtained
by health-care providers, primarily through abusive billing  practices. To
learn more, visit his qui tam web site at www.QuiTamOnline.com  or contact
him directly by e-mail at dharon@fsh-law.com  or phone (248) 952-0400 at
Frank, Stefani, Haron & Hall  in Troy http://www.fsh-law.com/

		Back to Quicklinks

		Health  Law

		KENNETH R. MARCUS, representing provider organizations and  professionals
since 1984 in Blue Cross/Medicaid/Medicare Audit Defense,  Payment Appeals,
Stark Act Compliance, Managed Care Contracting,  Physician Transactions,
Corporate Law. I work collaboratively with  general counsel. Phone
888.865.9955, fax: 248.865.9956, e-mail:  krmarcus@aol.com. Visit
www.lawyers.com/kenmarcus.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Hospital  & Medical Negligence

		THE  LAW OFFICES OF JOHN S. HONE, P.C., representing victims  of hospital and
medical negligence resulting in serious injury,  permanent cognitive and
physical disability and wrongful death.  Millions won, available for
consultation and referral, cases accepted  statewide. Phone Hone: (248)
888-7585; Toll Free: 888-HMO-1010;  Fax: (248) 473-8895; E-mail to
mmhmolawsuit@aol.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Immigration  and Naturalization

		NAHIL PETER ANTONE, N. Peter Antone, PC, 16445 West Twelve  Mile Road, Suite
100, Southfield, MI 48076, Phone: (248) 559-0707,  FAX: (248) 559-0790,
e-mail: Peter@Antone.com.  Visit http://Antone.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		ROGER R. RATHI, Attorney at Law, 29777 Telegraph Road, Suite  2500,
Southfield, MI 48034, Phone: (248) 539-8421, FAX: (248) 353-2786,  e-mail:
rrathi@yahoo.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		STEVEN N. GARMO, Law Offices of Garmo & Garmo, 28230 Orchard  Lake Road,
Suite 201, Farmington Hills, MI 48334, Phone: (248) 626-0050,  FAX: (248)
626-0051, e-mail: steve@garmo.com.  Visit: www.garmo.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Immigration  Law

		MARSHAL  E. HYMAN & ASSOCIATES. All  aspects of immigration law including
employment-based immigration  for professionals and skilled workers. Labor
certifications. Family-based  immigration. Immigration from Canada. Political
asylum, all waivers  and appeals. Corporate transfers for multinational
employees. Representation  in Immigration courts and Federal courts since
1981. 3250 West Big  Beaver, Suite 529, Troy, MI 48084. (248) 643-0642, Fax:
(248) 643-0798.  E-mail: marshalhyman@msu.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Insurance  Law

		STUART A. SKLAR, Fabian, Sklar & Davis, PC, 31800 Northwestern  Hwy, Suite
205, Farmington Hills, MI 48334, Phone: (248) 855-2110,  FAX: (248) 855-0209.
Additional office located in West Michigan  (616) 451-9900, e-mail:
ssklar-firelaw@tir.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Intellectual  Property Law

		GIFFORD, KRASS, GROH, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C.,  280 North Old
Woodward, Suite 400, Birmingham, MI 48009-5392, Phone:  (248) 647-6000, FAX:
(248) 647-5210, e-mail: info@patlaw.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, PLLC, Bloomfield Hills (248) 594-0600;  Grand Rapids
(616) 742-3500; Washington, DC (202) 955-3750; Englewood,  CO (303) 991-1200.
Visit www.intelprop.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Labor  & Employment

		THE LAW  OFFICE of  Gregory T. Gibbs  is an AV rated firm with years of
experience in employment law advice  and litigation. We can answer questions
about: handbooks, sexual  harassment, wrongful discharge, discrimination,
family medical leave,  collective bargaining, wage-hour issues or any other
employment  related matter under state or federal law. We work with you and
your clients under referral fee arrangements. 328 S. Saginaw St.,  Ste. 9001,
Flint, MI 48502. (810) 239-9470, fax (810) 235-2468,  e-mail:
bakerlak@tir.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		DAVID D. KOHL, 39500 Orchard Hill Place, Suite 110, Novi, MI  48375, Phone:
(248) 347-6666, FAX: (248) 348-8707, e-mail: daviddkohl@juno.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Litigation

		FINK, ZAUSMER & KAUFMAN, PC, 31700 Middlebelt Rd #150, Farmington  Hills, MI
48334, Phone: (248) 851-4111, FAX: (248) 851-0100. Additional  offices
located in Detroit (313) 963-3873, and Lansing (517) 374-2735.  Visit
http://www.lawsite.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		STEPHEN K. VALENTINE, JR, Valentine & Associates, 5767 West  Maple Road.
Suite 400, West Bloomfield, MI 48322, Phone: (248) 851-3010,  FAX: (248)
851-1553.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Medical  Malpractice

		WANT A SECOND  OPINION ON A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE? The  law offices of
Anthony M. Malizia, P.C., is a statewide firm that  handles only medical
malpractice cases. I am Martindale-Hubbell  "AV-rated." I sit as a
plaintiff's medical malpractice  mediator. I have 20 years experience in the
review and development  of these cases, many trials to jury verdict, and many
more settlements.  Over the years, upwards of 20% of my case inventory has
consisted  of meritorious cases initially rejected by others, including
"name  firms." Oftentimes these cases were subjected to incomplete  analysis
because of the firm's lack of in-depth, medico-legal background.  Sometimes
medical sleuthing or a new perspective was required. Send  me your rejected
case for a "de novo" review. We also  welcome the referral of "new" cases.
Anthony M. Malizia,  P.C., 37000 Grand River, Suite 340, Farmington Hills, MI
48335,  1-800-555-5107 or e-mail: amlmalizia@aol.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Real  Estate

		BRAD B. ALDRICH, Law Offices of Brad B. Aldrich, PLLC, 645  Griswold, Suite
3261, Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: (313) 965-9490,  FAX: (313) 965-9478, e-mail
belmontald@aol.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Special  Education Law

		LAW OFFICES  OF MARSHA LYNN TUCK with  20 years experience,
Martindale-Hubbell "AV-rated," representing  students with and without
disabilities in suspension, expulsion,  integration, inclusion, and similar
cases. Marsha Lynn Tuck, 30700  Telegraph Road, Suite 4646, Bingham Farms, MI
48025. (248) 585-9338.

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Tax  Litigation & Disputes

		JOSEPH FALCONE  is  available to assist attorneys with Federal and State
Civil and Criminal  Tax Litigation and Dispute matters. Joseph Falcone, a
former IRS  Detroit District Counsel Trial Attorney, has handled thousands
of  tax matters and has 27 years experience working in the specialized  area
of Tax Litigation and Disputes. If you require assistance with  a major tax
dispute, wish to refer a matter, or just need a few  minutes consultation
over the phone with your specific problem or  question, telephone or e-mail
us jf@lawyer.com.  Visit our website at www.lawyers.com/falconerolfe.
Falcone & Rolfe, P.C., 3000 Town Center, Suite 2370, Southfield,  MI 48075.
(248) 357 6610. Fax (248) 357-6613.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Transportation  Law

		PAUL M. ROSS, P.C., 2840 East Grand River Avenue, Suite  1, East Lansing, MI
48823-4911, Phone: (517) 337-7677, FAX: (517)  332-9361, e-mail:
pross1412@aol.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Worker's  Compensation

		JOHN M. H ULRICH, IV, Crawforth Mcmanus Tenbrunsel & Ulrich,  999 Haynes
Street, Suite 245, Birmingham, MI 48009-6702, Toll-free:  (800) 424-4878,
Phone: (248) 540-1270, FAX: (248) 540-3925.

		Back to Quicklinks

		To receive information  on how to place a Fields of Practice listing, contact
Stacy  Sage or see Advertising  Opportunities on our website.

		Back to Quicklinks

		classified  advertising

		Confidential  Records Destruction

		SHRED-IT.  Confidentiality, Privacy and Document Security are vital in
today's  environment. SHRED-IT provides solutions for secure destruction  of
confidential, sensitive and proprietary information, utilizing  a unique,
mobile, ON-SITE document destruction system. Call 1-800-69-SHRED  or
1-800-697-4733. E-mail  Eastern Michigan; e-mail  Out state Michigan or visit
 our website

		Back to Quicklinks

		Expert  Witness-Building

		EXPERT WITNESS  services  for construction issues. Our cases include issues
of faulty construction,  failure to disclose, personal injury and ADA. Mr.
Tyson is a member  of many model code organizations including BOCA, ICBO,
NFPA and  ASTM. Our attorney clients represent plaintiffs and defendants.
Rendering independent and unbiased opinions. Ortonville, MI. Phone  (248)
627-6859.

		Back to Quicklinks

		RESIDENTIAL  CONSTRUCTION--ABR  Construction Company, Inc. offering expertise
in all phases of residential  construction related to workmanship, cost,
time, structural analysis,  civil analysis, and other related problems.
Contact Jack W. Belkin  member BOCA, ASHI, Bldg. Spec. Inc. licensed builder
and real estate  broker. (248) 443-4063, cell (248) 867-5042 and fax (248)
443-4065,  e-mail jwbelkin@mich.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Expert  Witness-Economics Consulting

		ECONOMIC LOSS CALCULATION and litigation support in personal  injury,
wrongful death and wrongful discharge cases. Over 25 years  experience
including Chief Economist for the Michigan Department  of Commerce. John F.
Hanieski, Ph.D., Economics Consulting Services,  LLC, 8583 W. Eaton Hwy.,
Grand Ledge, MI 48837. (517) 627-6968.  E-mail: hanieski.john@acd.net
website: http://userdata.acd.net/hanieski.john

		Back to Quicklinks

		Expert  Witness-Forensic & Environmental Geologist

		FORENSIC  and ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGIST*Certified Professional Geologist;  29
years investigating soil and water issues for government and  private
sectors; deposition and trial experience applicable to cases  involving
insurance claims, construction accidents, environmental  contamination,
wetlands, property transactions, malpractice, murder,  rape, etc. For more
information, contact Robert A. Hayes, (517)  655-8348, or
www.geoforensics.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Expert  Witness-Legal Malpractice

		LEGAL MALPRACTICE-EXPERT  EVALUATION, pre-  and post-litigation analysis,
written opinions, deposition and trial  testimony in plaintiff originated or
defendant defended legal malpractice  cases that involve Real Estate and
Commercial Transactions and Civil  Litigation. 18 years' experience as legal
malpractice expert. Asher  N. Tilchin, Tilchin, Hall & Reynolds P.C., 31731
Northwestern  Hwy., Suite 106, Farmington Hills, MI 48334. (248) 855-0995,
fax  (248) 855-0850. E-mail antilchin@aol.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Lawsuit  Financials

		DO MONEY  PROBLEMS caused  by disability force some of your clients to settle
strong, valuable  cases for pennies on the dollar? A Lawsuit Financial,
L.L.C. contingent  advance allows you time to obtain the maximum dollar
possible for  your client's case. Lawsuit Financial, L.L.C., 29777 Telegraph
Road,  Suite 1310, Southfield, MI 48034. Call (248) 948-1800 or (877)
377-SUIT.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Legal  Research

		OPEN online  offers instant and cost effective access to public records.
Select  from many sources of criminal data, verify social security numbers,
confirm driving records, find addresses, UCC and incorporation filings,  real
property records, bankruptcies, liens and judgments. For information  call
800-935-OPEN (6736), email info@openonline.com,  or visit www.openonline.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Office  Space Available

		SOUTHFIELD  LAW OFFICE FOR RENT-Reception, conference, kitchen, photocopier,
fax, file room; secretary to share. Central location near all major
expressways for quick access for clientele and courts in the tri-county
area. Attractive and professional. Call Sandra Maison at (248) 355-9400.
Ddelong@thompsonmorello.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Positions  Available

		DAWDA, MANN, MULCAHY & SADLER a full-service Bloomfield  Hills firm, with 25
attorneys and a national client base, is seeking  a real estate/corporate
transactional attorney. Qualified candidates  must have 3-5 years experience
with strong academic credentials.  Send resume and references to Director of
Administration, 39533  Woodward Avenue, Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, MI
48304.

		Back to Quicklinks

		 DAWDA, MANN, MULCAHY & SADLER a full-service Bloomfield Hills  firm, with 25
attorneys and a national client base, is seeking a real  estate/corporate
transactional paralegal. Qualified candidates must  have 3-5 years experience
with strong academic credentials. Send resume  and references to Director of
Administration, 39533 Woodward Avenue,  Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, MI
48304.

		Back to Quicklinks

		ESTABLISHED  MID-SIZED AV Rated Bloomfield Hills litigation firm
representing  businesses and insurance companies, seeks attorney with 0-3
years  experience. Litigation experience helpful. Please direct resumes to
Linda Pillsworth via e-mail: lpillsworth@kallashenk.com or, Facsimile:  (248)
335-9889, or via regular mail: 43902 Woodward Avenue, Suite  200, Bloomfield
Hills, MI 48302. NO TELEPHONE CALLS PLEASE.

		Back to Quicklinks

		EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-The  Grand Rapids Bar Association is soliciting
applications for the position  of Executive Director. The GRBA is a voluntary
local bar with 1,500  members, a full-time staff of 7, one-half-time position
and 8 part-time  volunteers. The Executive Director is the chief operating
officer.  The GRBA includes a Lawyer Referral Service, which will become the
centerpiece for a new Legal Assistance Center in September 2001. The  GRBA
has a combined operating budget of $850,000. The Executive Director  also
oversees, with a committee and the board, the Grand Rapids Bar  Foundation
with assets of $1 million. The Executive Director is responsible  to a
seventeen member Board in accord with policies and procedures  adopted by the
Board. The successful candidate will be a seasoned  executive with a
demonstrated record of achieving positive results,  including experience in
the area of fund development. The Executive  Director will exhibit a high
level of integrity with superior management,  organizational, budgeting,
personnel, and interpersonal communication  skills. The GRBA offers a
competitive salary and benefits package.  Applicants are encouraged to submit
a letter of interest, current  resume, references, and salary requirements to
Executive Director  Search Committee, c/o Sherrie Parmelee, Smith, Haughey,
Rice &  Roegge, Calder Plaza Bldg., 250 Monroe NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503,
(616) 458-2385, sparmlee@shrr.com  The Grand Rapids Bar Association is an
Equal Opportunity Employer.

		Back to Quicklinks

		IMMEDIATE OPENING--Lague,  Newman & Irish is seeking an associate with 1 - 2
years experience.  Candidates must have strong academic credentials and
excellent writing  abilities. Send cover letter, resume, and transcripts to
Eric Gielow,  Lague, Newman & Irish, P.O. Box 389, Muskegon, MI 49443 (or
ergielow@lnilaw.com).

		Back to Quicklinks

		INSURANCE  CLAIMS attorney needed for growing company in pleasant, small
town environment. 3-5 years experience in claims and/or litigation
supervision with a property/casualty insurance company or insurance  defense
firm mandatory. Member of the State Bar of Michigan required.  Send resume to
jhutchins@hastingsmutual.com  or mail to Hastings Mutual Insurance Co., Attn:
Human Resources, 404  E. Woodlawn Avenue, Hastings, MI 49058.

		Back to Quicklinks

		MICHIGAN MIGRANT LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT, INC., an established  migrant
legal services program, seeks an Executive Director. Ideal  candidate has
five years experience in farmworker law, and some administrative  experience.
MMLAP is a statewide program that brings high impact cases  in state and
federal courts. Candidate must be, or promptly become,  licensed to practice
in Michigan, and must be bi-lingual (English/Spanish).  Salary $65,000-DOE,
excellent benefits. Applications accepted through  June 15, 2001. MMLAP is an
EOE. Send resume to: Richard Kessler, Search  Committee, c/o MMLAP, 648
Monroe, N.W., Suite 318, Grand Rapids, MI  49504.

		Back to Quicklinks

		PART-TIME  LAWYER FOR HARLEY-DAVIDSON MICHIGAN, INC.*Lawyer needed (15  - 20
hrs/wk) at busy domestic and international Fortune 500 corporate  trademark
law practice in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Strong analytical and  writing skills
and excellent attention to detail are required. This  is a year-round
position. Please do not apply unless you have an interest  in practicing
trademark law. No telephone calls, please. Send your  resume to: Ann Jackson,
Harley-Davidson Michigan, Inc., 315 W. Huron  Street, Suite 400, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48103.

		Back to Quicklinks

		RESPONSIBILITES  of this person are to provide advice to various departments.
Draft,  review and negotiate agreements, debt instruments, and guaranties
for domestic and international business units. Review all advertising  for
compliance with FTC regulations, trademark usage and adherence  to corporate
policies. Defend employment related legal actions and  review and advise on
hiring practices and procedures. Minimum qualifications  are seven years
experience from a law firm and/or a major corporation  with relevant practice
experience. Plus strong background with employment  law. J.D. from a
accredited law school, admitted to practice law in  Michigan or other U.S.
jurisdiction. Please send resume to Ashleys@dominos.com  or fax to
734-930-4350. Salary is 110K.Legal Department, Domino's  Pizza, 30 Frank
Lloyd Wright Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.

		Back to Quicklinks

		UNIVERSITY  OF MICHIGAN*The Office of the Vice  President and General Counsel
of the University of Michigan is seeking  exceptionally qualified applicants
for an attorney who will provide  advice and counsel on health law matters in
the areas of managed care,  reimbursement, research and privacy/security. The
position requires  experience in the above-noted areas. Candidates with
strong business  acumen-gained through in-house experience or by working
closely with  business clients-will be preferred. Minimum qualifications
include  excellent academic credentials, a law degree from an accredited law
school, membership in the Michigan bar or eligibility for admission  based on
reciprocity, and at least 5 years of relevant experience.  The salary will be
commensurate with the selected candidate's experience  and employment in the
public section. Applications will be accepted  until the position if filled,
but applications should be submitted  promptly to ensure full consideration.
To apply, please send a cover  letter and resume to: Office of the Vice
President and General Counsel,  Attention: HEALTH, 4010 Fleming
Administration Building, Ann Arbor,  Michigan 48109-1340. The University of
Michigan is an equal opportunity,  affirmative action employer.

		Back to Quicklinks

		UNIVERSITY  OF MICHIGAN--The  Office of the Vice President and General
Counsel of the University  of Michigan is seeking exceptionally qualified
applicants for an attorney  who will take primary responsibility for
coordinating the University's  litigation in the medical malpractice area.
The successful candidate  will engage and supervise outside counsel in
medical malpractice and  will provide advice and representation in other
areas of health care  law. This position will work closely with the senior
leadership of  the University Health System, including the Chief of Staff for
Clinical  Affairs and the Director of the Medical Center Risk Management
Office,  other attorneys in the Office of the Vice President and General
Counsel,  and with individual members of the medical staff. The successful
candidate  will draft and review policies; serve on University committees;
conduct  educational programs on legal topics for the University community,
and carry out other duties as assigned. Experience providing legal  services
for a university affiliated, or similar, health care system  is desired. A
law degree from an NALS accredited law school, membership  or eligibility for
membership in the State Bar of Michigan, at least  five years litigation
experience with an emphasis on medical malpractice,  reasonable experience in
health care law are required. Applications  will be accepted until the
position is filled, but applications should  be submitted promptly to ensure
full consideration. To apply, please  send a cover letter and resume to:
Office of the Vice President and  General Counsel, Attention: MED MAL, 4010
Fleming Administration Building,  Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1340. The
University of Michigan is an equal  opportunity, affirmative action employer.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Services

		SOUTH FLORIDA  ATTORNEY available for consultations, all legal and business
matters, referrals, or local counsel, litigation and estates. Contact  Mark
M. Berkley, 385-C West 49th Street, Hialeah (Miami) Florida  33012, telephone
305.556.2626. Member of the State Bar of Michigan  for 25 years and the
Florida Bar for 14 years.

		Back to Quicklinks

		To receive information  on how to place a classified advertisement, contact
Stacy  Sage

		news  & moves

		Back to Quicklinks

		  bar events

		Back to Quicklinks

		archived  e-Journals

		Case  Summary Cumulative Index

		Thursday, May  10  e-Journal

		Friday, May  11 e-Journal

		Monday, May  14 e-Journal

		Tuesday, May  15 e-Journal

		Wednesday,  May 16 e-Journal

		Back to Quicklinks

		contacts

		For information  on classified advertising, contact Stacy Sage

		For information  on fields of practice listings, contact Stacy  Sage

		For unsubscribe  and change of address issues, contact: Carrie  Pickett

		To list bar  event information, send your information to Carrie  Pickett

		Editorial  comments may be sent to Nancy  Brown

		Technical  questions may be sent to e-journal-tech@michbar.org

		Who  Does What at the State Bar

		Back to Quicklinks

		To receive the  text-only version, please send an e-mail to
lyris@lists.michbar.org In  the body, type: subscribe ejournal-text. To
unsubscribe from the html  version, type: unsubscribe ejournal on the next
line. You may re-subscribe  or unsubscribe at any time.

State Bar of  Michigan Home
Copyright , 2001, State Bar of Michigan
---
You are currently subscribed to ejournal as: [mark.e.haedicke@enron.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-ejournal-255481W@lists.michbar.org


Carol St. Clair
EB 3889
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com
----- Forwarded by Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT on 05/17/2001 08:45 AM -----

	boldham@reliant.com
	05/16/2001 04:32 PM

		 To: Carol.St.Clair@enron.com
		 cc: jkgreene@reliant.com
		 Subject: ENRON Surety Bond as Collateral

Ms. St. Clair:

This will confirm my conversation with Susanne of your office wherein this
meeting is set at ENRON for Thursday, May 24 at 2:00PM.  We will ask for
you when we check in at security.

Thankyou

Bill Oldham
Director, Insurance Risk Management
Reliant Energy Incorporated
Telephone No.713/207-3131
FAX No. 713/207-3251
email:    bill-oldham@reliantenergy.com
----- Forwarded by Bill Oldham/ADM/HouInd on 05/16/01 04:29 PM -----

                    Bill Oldham
                                         To:     Carol.St.Clair@enron.com
                    05/15/01             cc:     Janet K
Greene/ADM/HouInd@HouInd, Eddie R
                    08:32 AM             Meche/TTG/HouInd@HouInd, Bill T
Hamilton/TTG/HouInd@HouInd, Rex
                                         Clevenger/ADM/HouInd@HouInd, William
Waller/ADM/HouInd@HouInd
                                         Subject:     ENRON Surety Bond as
Collateral

Ms. St. Clair:

I am the Director of Insurance Risk Management at Reliant and Janet Greene
asked me to set up a conference call and/or meeting with you to answer any
questions that you and your credit people may have about our proposal to
utilize surety bonds as collateral with ENRON.  If you will send me a
couple of dates and times for  the week of May 21 Re when you are
available, I will arrange to have representatives from Aon, the broker for
Reliant who is also  the issuing agent for the sureties in this matter,
available for discussion with you and your people, either for a conference
call or in a meeting at ENRON, if you prefer.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thankyou,

Bill Oldham
Director, Insurance Risk Management
Reliant Energy Incorporated
Telephone No.713/207-3131
FAX No. 713/207-3251
email:    bill-oldham@reliantenergy.com


Dear Real-Timers,

Just wanted to let you know that I have had 4 or 5 dispute requests which are
actually a counterparty change.  They have been entered in EnPower as sales
or purchases to/from TransCanada Power Corp. when the counterparty is
actually TransCanada Power, a division of TransCanada Energy Ltd   (who
really knows the difference?)  Anyway, just wanted to bring this to your
attention so that the next time they call, you know how to record it in
EnPower.  (Or at least you'll know to ask which TransCanada they are.)

VA