Our Results
What If You Did Not Do It
Most of our work is in the civil arena, but when someone says our client did it when he or she did not, we sometimes enter the criminal arena to defend our client. In a recent case in northern Michigan a public school official was accused of writing an anonymous letter. Our client was prosecuted for two felonies and one misdemeanor. After successfully having the two felonies reduced to misdemeanors, as a first step in the process, our client was subjected to a jury trial on three misdemeanor counts. After a five day jury trial, with the help of a handwriting expert, our client was acquitted on all counts. More importantly a sample of the jury demonstrated that the reason was because the jury was convinced that the our client was innocent.
March 2020
Howard Law Group Victory Ranked #1 Judgment in Lawyer’s Weekly Law Journal’s "Million Dollar Verdicts & Settlements of 2016"
Howard Law Group is pleased to announce that its verdict on behalf of its client, LidoChem, tripled by Judge Jonker in 2016 has been recognized by Lawyer’s Weekly as the number 1 judgment of the year, making it the most significant false advertising/Lanham Act award in 2016.
The size of the substantial judgment confirms the importance of protecting businesses from false advertising and demonstrates what can occur when statements cross the line from mere “puffing” to outlandish falsehoods in an attempt to gain a foothold in the marketplace.
May 2017
Defense Win from Loan Service Company
The Howard Law Group successfully defended its client from Clearspring Loan Services’ (“Clearspring”) attempt to collect the deficiency owed from an overdue mortgage note. The client had previously declared bankruptcy years earlier and the property, on which the mortgage note was due, had been sold back to the original lender and the note was eventually transferred to Clearspring. Prior to this, a recovery services had served the client with default notices in May of 2009 at the latest. This same recovery services subsequently represented Clearspring in its attempt to recover the deficiency and filed the claim in June of 2015. The Howard Law Group filed a Motion for Summary Disposition proving that Clearspring was in violation of the Statute of Limitations when it filed its claim more than 6 years after the client had originally defaulted on the note. As such, judgment was granted in favor of the Howard Law Group’s client and dismissed all claims against the client.
April 2016
LidoChem, Inc. v Stoller Enterprises, et al. ($44.5 Million Decision)
Judge TRIPLED the Jury’s Award for Plaintiff due to Defendants’ “Intentional, Egregious” Behavior
Read the article in Michigan Lawyers Weekly
Howard Law Group prevailed once again in a Michigan court for its client LidoChem Inc., a supplier of new products and technologies for the agriculture and turf markets. Yesterday, the Honorable Robert J. Jonker awarded $44.5 million to the company – more than 3x the original amount awarded by a jury – which includes attorneys’ fees, interest and other costs. The long awaited decision comes nearly 2 years after a jury found Stoller Enterprises, Inc., Jerry Stoller and David Alexander willfully violated the Lanham Act due to defendants’ anti-competitive business activities.
Read the full case study to learn more.
January 2016
Thermal-Tec vs McInnis, et al.
The Howard Law Group recently prevailed in a trade secrets case against a former, highly compensated, key employee. During discovery, the Howard Law Group learned that the trusted employee had engaged in secret, competitive, activities for four (4) years while still employed by the plaintiff. He diverted his employer’s proprietary information for his own personal gain which the jury found violated Michigan’s Uniform Trade Secret Law (MUTSA). The jury also found that the former employee violated his non-disclosure agreement which protected the employer’s confidential and proprietary information.
The last year while still employed, he also set up a competitive company with 2 other business partners (also former employees) unbeknownst to his employer. The new company also exploited and used the employer’s trade secret information to specifically solicit the employer’s customers, violating MUTSA.
October 2015
Gibbons v Agricultural Consultants, LLC, et al
How do you solve a problem like urea? The Honorable Christopher P. Yates posed this very question, as he began his recent opinion in a sales commission case against defendant/employers, Agricultural Consultants, LLC and W.S.
Read the full case study to learn more.
January 2015
Graphic Specialties, Inc. v Rivera
Howard Law Group successfully obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction for its client (an employer) following the employee’s conversion of hundreds of thousands of dollars of company equipment.
September 2014
Lidochem, Inc. v Stoller Enterprises, et al
Howard Law Group obtained a $12 million dollar jury verdict for its client for violations of the Lanham Act
(federal unfair competition statute). Howard Law Group proved that the defendants made disparaging comments
regarding the client and its products to consumers for over a decade within the 20 hours of jury trial time
allotted by the court.
This win was one of the biggest in the State of Michigan and made Michigan Lawyers
Weekly’s “Million Dollar Verdict” Issue, coming in at number 3.
Read the full case study to learn more.
March 2014
Thermal-Tec/Michigan, Inc. v Commercial & Industrial Building Maintenance, LLC, et al
Howard Law Group obtained numerous temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions on behalf of its client, an employer, following the submission of testimony at hearings for misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion of employer property, violations of non-competition agreements, etc.
September 2013
Graphic Specialties, Inc. v Schultz Bindery, Inc., et al
Howard Law Group obtained numerous temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions on behalf of its client, an employer, following the submission of testimony at hearings for misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion of employer property, violations of non-competition agreements, etc.
June 2013
Rafael’s Credit Car, Inc. v Lee Auto Export, LLC
Howard Law Group successfully defended a car dealership, receiving a no cause of action verdict regarding allegations of violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.
March 2013
Lancaster v Production Resource Group, LLC
Howard Law Group successfully defended its client, a production company, receiving a no cause of action verdict against claims involving negligent operation of performance hall lighting equipment in which Plaintiff sought over a million dollar in damages.
October 2010
Great Lakes Dock & Materials, LLC v Ottawa County Road Commission, et al
Howard Law Group obtained a favorable verdict for its client, a marine construction contractor, for claims associated with the breach of a construction contract.
July 2009
American Home Assurance/Titan Contracting, Inc. V EEI Holding Corporation, Et Al
Titan Contracting, one of the largest utility contractors in the world, had an incident that required the
special handling of the Howard Law Group. One of Titan Contracting’s employees was injured on the job as a
result of the negligence of one of the subcontractors on the jobsite.
Read the full case study to learn more.
September 2008
Holesinger V Precision Landscape Maintenance, LLC
Howard Law Group successfully defended its client, a landscape maintenance company, receiving a no cause of action verdict against claims associated with breach of contract.
July 2008
Underwater Construction Company
During an underwater construction project, a small crane on a jack-up barge overturned causing the death of an employee of Underwater Construction Company. Howard Law Group was called in on the scene immediately, arranging for a post-accident investigation to be undertaken.
Read the full case study to learn more.
June 2007
Buckeye Union Insurance Company/Kinley V Cruisers Yachts, Et Al
Howard Law Group successfully defended its client, a boat manufacturer, against claims involving products liability and breach of warranty in which Plaintiff sought over a million dollars in damages.
May 2007
Successful Representation of National Car Hauler Cottrell, Inc. in Claims Involving Transportation / Trucking Products Liability
Howard Law successfully won all of the following trials for its client:
- Luther v Cottrell, Inc., et al
- Leach v Cottrell, Inc., et al
- Sandage v Cottrell, Inc., et al
- Gibbs v Cottrell, Inc., et al
- Worth v Cottrell, Inc., et al
- Long v Cottrell, Inc., et al
- Luther v Cottrell, Inc., et al
- Bassett v Cottrell, Inc., et al
- Kline v Cottrell, Inc., et al
- Longstreet v Cottrell, Inc., et al
February 2004