KEVIN ABRAMCZYK V CITY OF SOUTHGATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
KEVIN ABRAMCZYK, GERALD NORTON,
and DANIEL WLODKOWSKI,
UNPUBLISHED
April 9, 2002
Plaintiffs-Appellants/CrossAppellees,
and
ERIC BLAZ, MICHAEL BOYD, PAUL
DIEDRICH, PATRICK KAKOS, SEAN
LAFOUNTAINE, CHARLES PRATHER,
GERALD SCHULZ, and RICHARD SCHULZ,1
Plaintiffs,
v
No. 224222
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 96-640658-NO
THE CITY OF SOUTHGATE, a Michigan
Municipal Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee/CrossAppellant,
and
STEPHEN AHLES, in an individual and official
capacity,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
NORMA WURMLINGER, in an individual and
official capacity,
Defendant.
1
By stipulation of the parties, this Court entered an order on March 1, 2002 dismissing plaintiffs
from this appeal with prejudice and without costs.
-1-
KEVIN ABRAMCZYK, GERALD NORTON,
and DANIEL WLODKOWSKI,
Plaintiffs-Appellees/CrossAppellants,
and
ERIC BLAZ, MICHAEL BOYD, PAUL
DIEDRICH, PATRICK KAKOS, SEAN
LAFOUNTAINE, CHARLES PRATHER,
GERALD SCHULZ, and RICHARD SCHULZ,2
Plaintiffs,
v
No. 224223
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 96-640658-NO
THE CITY OF SOUTHGATE,
Defendant-Appellant/CrossAppellee,
and
STEPHEN AHLES, in an individual and official
capacity, and NORMA WURMLINGER, in an
individual and official capacity,
Defendants.
KEVIN ABRAMCZYK, GERALD NORTON,
and DANIEL WLODKOWSKI,
Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross
Appellants,
and
ERIC BLAZ, MICHAEL BOYD, PAUL
2
See footnote 1.
-2-
DIEDRICH, PATRICK KAKOS, SEAN
LAFOUNTAINE, CHARLES PRATHER,
GERALD SCHULZ, and RICHARD SCHULZ,3
Plaintiffs,
v
STEPHEN AHLES, in an individual and official
capacity,
No. 224260
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 96-640658-NO
Defendant-Appellant/CrossAppellee,
and
THE CITY OF SOUTHGATE, a Michigan
Municipal Corporation, and NORMA
WURMLINGER, in an individual and official
capacity,
Defendants.
Before: O'Connell, P.J., and White and Cooper, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in all respects with the majority opinion, except section D, addressing the public
policy claim against defendant City. On that claim, I agree that the trial court properly vacated
the award of punitive damages against defendant City, but on the basis that the jury’s award of
such damages was contrary to the jury instructions, and contrary to the jury’s findings that
defendant City did not violate the eavesdropping statutes.
I would affirm the trial court’s determination not to disturb the jury’s award of
compensatory damages against defendant City on the public policy claim. The jury was
permitted to make nuanced distinctions between defendant City directly violating the
eavesdropping statutes, and defendant City permitting, at the highest level of City government, a
violation of the eavesdropping statutes. I conclude that the evidence was such that the issues of
policy and proximate cause discussed by the majority were properly left to the jury.
/s/ Helene N. White
(…continued)
3
See footnote 1.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
