New judge assigned: Carol Kunke
UM grad, not sure if she played football for Bo though
November 11th, 2023 at 7:47 AM ^
That just triggered some disturbing memories.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:00 PM ^
I say just keep passing it from judge to judge every 40 minutes or so until 12:01 AM.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:01 PM ^
She's also a longtime resident and was half of Davis / Kuhnke (which did civil litigation, I think), which was on S.Main until she was elected to her current position.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:02 PM ^
Connors is still the assigned judge as of this minute on the docket…
November 10th, 2023 at 10:17 PM ^
Clerk is on a bathroom break. Will be back at midnight.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:38 PM ^
This is Moderately urgent. Extreme urgency would demand a decision within two hours. Moderately urgent means at least three hours but no more than 14 hours.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:03 PM ^
Rearrange the letters in her name and you get A Locker Hunk. My sources say that’s good.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:08 PM ^
I rearranged the letters in Pititti and came up with dipshit.
Not sure I'm doing this right
November 10th, 2023 at 10:18 PM ^
It works for Scrabble, it works for MGoBlog. Nailed it congrats.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:20 PM ^
Triple word, even.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:21 PM ^
Close enough for what we're doing here.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:03 PM ^
Considering both have ties to Michigan, I presume this turn of events is just "fog of war" shit instead of a recusal.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:06 PM ^
She's Chief Judge, so my educated guess here is that it was originally assigned to Connors as the judge on call (for lack of a better term) and then she took it from there (because it's high profile, rather than a recusal).
November 10th, 2023 at 10:08 PM ^
That’s not how assignments work. At all.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:13 PM ^
How does it work? This has been a very educational night for us non-lawyers so far.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:20 PM ^
Judges don’t take over cases because they are “high profile.” If it was originally assigned to Connors as the duty judge and she now has it, he most likely recused himself due to his ties to M as an adjunct professor and she was subsequently assigned the case.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:31 PM ^
Eh... we are saying the same thing, minus the recusal. I was imprecise/inarticulate, though, so my apologies. I didn't mean that it was taken away from Connors because it was high profile. What I meant was your first part - that he was just the duty judge - and that she got it from there. How/why? Could be recusal, or could just be normal reassignment from duty judge to the judge who who will hear it. But it's definitely not out of the question that she got the case, after it left Connors, because it was high profile (again, not that it left Connors because it was high profile).
November 10th, 2023 at 10:36 PM ^
The duty judge would handle after hours TRO requests, typically. Absent recusal, it would be odd for it to go to another judge for the TRO decision.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:39 PM ^
Good and helpful insight. Thank you!
November 10th, 2023 at 11:33 PM ^
this is correct. there is a duty judge on all 'off' days whose job it is to deal with these types of petitions as well as search warrants during the weekends. go blue, get TRO!
November 10th, 2023 at 10:14 PM ^
Care to educate then? I'm not a Michigan lawyer, so would appreciate the insight on how that works. Thanks in advance.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:11 PM ^
He's a business court judge, so it would get assigned to him normally.
Edit: The case is a business court case (which is denoted by the "cb" at the end of the case number, contract cases are "ck", real estate are "ch", etc). Business courts were established as specialized dockets for cases involving businesses (and non profits, and their employees and officers). Only a couple judges are assigned to the business court, by the Michigan Supreme Court (ie: Oakland County has two, Livingston has one). As the business court judge Connors would get assigned the business court cases (I can't remember if there's one or two in Washtenaw).
November 10th, 2023 at 10:23 PM ^
^This guy fucks(sues).
November 10th, 2023 at 10:04 PM ^
Her LinkedIn went from 4 views yesterday to 500 in an hour.
Like Andy Warhol stated - "Everyone will be world famous for 15 minutes".
Come through for us, your honor...
November 10th, 2023 at 10:05 PM ^
I tried a case in front of her 3 years ago. Not bad. A little short tempered, but I also don't appear in Washtenaw a lot. Like Macomb and Gennesee, it can be a bit insular.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:07 PM ^
I would imagine TP's shortsighted pettiness causing her to work past 10PM on a Friday would make her more than "a little short tempered".
November 10th, 2023 at 10:22 PM ^
"Short tempered" might be in our favor for this one.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:50 PM ^
She told me that she is only short-tempered when adjudicating the cases you're involved in. She said your mannerisms rub her the wrong way.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:05 PM ^
She ruled for the grad teachers so she’s pro labor, likely pro head coach labor.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:17 PM ^
Then hopefully someone can remind her that JH hired a Mimi- Bolden Morris as a grad assistant last year.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:06 PM ^
Kunhke, Connors, Judge judy, Judge whoever. just get us our coach on the field, so Harbaugh can give Tony a Petiti twister at the B10 championship
November 10th, 2023 at 10:07 PM ^
I thought my days of staying up late hitting 'refresh' every 10 seconds while pretending I'm being reasonable were long behind me. Alas...Michigan football drama.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:36 PM ^
Rum. Bourbon. Either works wonders.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:08 PM ^
A good thing if you ask me...had a trial before Connors and his ruling was so absurd, we appealed and won a unanimous decision at the appellate level. Connors essentially ignored the actual law in our case...applied his own instead. Way different sort of case, but still think he is not the right guy to hear and rule here.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:12 PM ^
I don’t think I’ve ever lost in front of Conners. I owned a particularly smug assistant AG in front of Connors and the judge laughed while signing my order.
You are correct that Connors isn’t right for this. He’d likely side with Michigan but issue a one-sentence order.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:20 PM ^
I also have not lost in front of Conners.
That said, I've never met him or am employed as an attorney. But like you - never lost to him.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:36 PM ^
What do you, commie_high, and Judge Connors all have in common? Never been in my kitchen.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:50 PM ^
Didn’t Connors play football for Michigan? He had to recuse himself, but it’s too bad because I am quite confident he would have said, “Hmmm…a penalty based entirely on an “improper advanced scouting scheme”? Does the B1G have a rule that provides enough details to an institution that it should be able to discern what does and does not constitute acceptable behavior in that area? No??? That’s weird. Why do you say it was impermissible Mr. P? Oh, because the NCAA does. Did the NCAA say Michigan violated that rule? Oh, not yet? Weird. Then your suspension is premature at best and perhaps arbitrary and capricious. And by the way, the punishment doesn’t even attempt to address your stated concern and I had to chuckle at the idea that a football staff member watching a sideline and game intently means they have an advantage over their opponent! TRO granted. You all can figure this out later.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:24 PM ^
David?
I'm kidding.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:08 PM ^
A good thing if you ask me...had a trial before Connors and his ruling was so absurd, we appealed and won a unanimous decision at the appellate level. Connors essentially ignored the actual law in our case...applied his own instead. Way different sort of case, but still think he is not the right guy to hear and rule here.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:08 PM ^
I don't think this will be granted. I'm not 100% certain what the standard is but I would imagine that Michigan would need to show (1) substantial likelihood of injury and (2) substantial likelihood of success on the merits after a final hearing. The injury is obviously there, but I don't think that M can show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits after a final hearing. Maybe M will prevail after a final hearing, but at this point, can they show substantial likelihood that they would?
I may be wrong on the standard though.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:14 PM ^
If it's not granted, I'm okay with the team being even more pissed off.
Bet
November 10th, 2023 at 10:14 PM ^
The stupidity of opposing counsel seems to be enough for Michigan to show likelihood of success.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:14 PM ^
I don't like what you posted so I'll disagree.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:15 PM ^
This isn’t Warde making our arguments for us. We hired one of the most prestigious law firms in the country and they better freaking make their money tonight
November 10th, 2023 at 10:16 PM ^
No place here for that talk.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:19 PM ^
Not negging - you it's your opinion, buuuuuuut just me feeling that #1 and the immediacy of this will likely overwhelm #2 enough that they've have an argument they can win, which is really all you need. Put it this way: W&C can have a strong enough argument on #2 to get a TRO is my belief. I agree the injunction is harder though.