Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by John T. Schuring
Fifth Circuit Reinstates CTA Injunction, FinCEN Still Accepting Voluntary Filings
In a surprising reversal, on December 26, 2024, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order that vacated (effectively reversing) the same court's order from December 23, 2024, and reinstated a lower court's nationwide injunction against enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA or the Act). Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., No. 24-40792 (5th Cir. December 26, 2024) (Court Order partially vacating Motions Panel Order).
Fifth Circuit Reinstates CTA Injunction, FinCEN Still Accepting Voluntary Filings | JD Supra
In a surprising reversal, on December 26, 2024, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order that vacated (effectively reversing) the same court’s order from December 23, 2024, and reinstated a lower court’s nationwide injunction against enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA or the Act). Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., No. 24-40792 (5th Cir. December 26, 2024) (Court Order partially vacating Motions Panel Order).
Michigan Supreme Court decision - a reminder on requirements contracts
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. (Docket No. 163523) that a “blanket” purchase order—setting forth the terms of forthcoming sales—did not constitute a requirements contract because a quantity term was lacking (more simply, the term “blanket” was undefined).
Michigan Supreme Court Decision – A Reminder on Requirements Contracts | JD Supra
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. (Docket No. 163523) that a “blanket” purchase order—setting forth the terms of forthcoming sales—did not constitute a requirements contract because a quantity term was lacking (more simply, the term “blanket” was undefined).
Michigan Supreme Court Decision – A Reminder On Requirements Contracts - Trials & Appeals & Compensation - United States
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. (Docket No. 163523) that a "blanket" purchase order—setting forth the terms of forthcoming sales—did not constitute a requirements contract because a quantity term was lacking (more simply, the term "blanket" was undefined).
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with John T.
Contact John T., search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack