News & Analysis as of

MI Supreme Court Contract Terms

Warner Norcross + Judd

Michigan Supreme Court Reinstates “Reasonableness” Test: New Rules for Shortened Limitations Periods in Employment Contracts

Warner Norcross + Judd on

The Michigan Supreme Court recently held in Rayford v. American House Roseville I LLC that courts must review for reasonableness provisions in employment contracts that limit the amount of time within which an employee may...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Michigan Supreme Court Says Time Limits on Employment Claims Must Be Reasonable

On July 31, 2025, in Rayford v. American House Roseville I, LLC, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that contractual time limitations for employment lawsuits must pass a reasonableness test....more

Husch Blackwell LLP

Michigan Supreme Court Upends Shortened Limitations Periods in Employment Contracts

Husch Blackwell LLP on

Imagine accepting a new job, signing a stack of documents, and working for years—only to learn after being fired that hidden fine print gave you just months, not years, to sue for wrongful termination. Sound fair? The...more

Bodman

Contractually Shortened Claim Limitation Periods are No Longer Automatically Enforceable Following Supreme Court Ruling

Bodman on

On July 31, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court changed the test for enforceability of contractually shortened claim limitation periods in Rayford v American House. Employers often shorten the statute of limitations of...more

Miller Canfield

Michigan Supreme Court - Contractually Shortened Period of Limitations in Employment Agreements May Need Another Look

Miller Canfield on

On July 31, 2025, in Tamika Rayford v American House Roseville, LLC d/b/a American House East I and American House, the Michigan Supreme Court held that boilerplate employment agreements that shorten the limitations period to...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

The State of the Law of Requirements Contracts

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Amid increasing pressure on supply chains across the globe, multiple recent court opinions have disrupted the law of requirements contracts. These decisions are critical as requirements contracts are common features across...more

Proskauer Rose LLP

Top 10 Whistleblowing and Retaliation Events of 2024

Proskauer Rose LLP on

Following our annual tradition — which started over a decade ago — we are analyzing the year's 10 most significant whistleblower and retaliation events. As you'll see, in 2024, actions taken by a range of courts and...more

Warner Norcross + Judd

Warner Client AirBoss Secures $3.5 Million Judgment in Trial Following Landmark Supreme Court Decision

Warner Norcross + Judd on

In a court opinion that borrowed at length from the infamous “My father made him an offer he couldn’t refuse” scene from The Godfather, Warner’s client AirBoss Flexible Products prevailed in a high-profile supply chain...more

Warner Norcross + Judd

Trial Courts Continue Grappling with When a Supplier is Bound to a Buyer’s Requirements of Products

Warner Norcross + Judd on

Over the past two years, federal and state courts have issued a series of decisions with important implications for supply chain contracts. Most notably, the appellate courts in the AirBoss and Higuchi cases provided guidance...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Changing Requirements: Recent Disruptions to the Law of Requirements Contracts

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Amid increasing pressure on supply chains across the globe, multiple recent court opinions have disrupted the law of requirements contracts – contracts regularly relied upon across industries by many original equipment...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Sixth Circuit Finds Automotive Supplier’s “Blanket Contract” Did Not Create Requirements Contract, Citing Airboss

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On May 23, 2024, the Sixth Circuit became the latest court to analyze last year’s Michigan Supreme Court decision of MSSC, Inc. v. Airboss Flexible Prods. Co. (“Airboss”), finding that an automotive supplier’s “blanket...more

Quarles & Brady LLP

MSSC v. Airboss Continues to Roil Automotive Supply Markets —  Sixth Circuit Reverses Preliminary Injunction Ordering Auto...

Quarles & Brady LLP on

Relying on a recent Michigan Supreme Court opinion, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a preliminary injunction requiring an auto supplier to supply products, holding that the parties’ purchase order...more

Dickinson Wright

Michigan Supreme Court Decision – A Reminder on Requirements Contracts

Dickinson Wright on

Michigan law requires contracts for the sale of goods worth $1,000 or more to be in writing and provide a quantity term. On July 11, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in MSSC, Inc. v. Airboss Flexible Products Co....more

Bodman

Michigan Supreme Court Overrules Court of Appeals Decision in MSSC, Inc. v. Airboss Flexible Products Co.

Bodman on

We write to alert you to a recent development on one of the topics discussed at the Bodman/Kharon/Miller & Chevalier Executive Briefing on Emerging Legal and Regulatory Issues Facing Automotive Companies that took place on...more

14 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide