- Posted January 05, 2012
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Moroun should be excused from key bridge hearing, lawyers say

DETROIT (AP) -- The man long identified as the owner of the Ambassador Bridge really isn't the owner and should be excused from a critical court hearing next week, his attorneys said.
A judge will decide the consequences of finding Detroit International Bridge Co. in contempt for failing to finish work on a project linking the U.S.-Canada span with two Detroit interstates.
Lawyers for Manuel "Matty" Moroun said that a Moroun trust has a minority stake in a holding company that owns the bridge. Moroun and bridge president Dan Stamper have been ordered to court on Jan. 12. Lawyers say it's Stamper who knows the bridge project, not Moroun.
The state Transportation Department said Moroun shouldn't be excused from the hearing. The state said he has control over the bridge company.
Cooley Law School Professor Curt Benson said Moroun's legal argument is weak.
"Mr. Moroun's owners latch onto the judge's comment that he is the 'owner,'" Benson told The Detroit News. "The law rarely speaks of ownership. We talk about control and authority: OK, who really runs the show and the court has more than enough evidence to show that he does have control or authority."
Published: Thu, Jan 5, 2012
headlines Oakland County
- Whitmer signs gun violence prevention legislation
- Department of Attorney General conducts statewide warrant sweep, arrests 9
- Adoptive families across Michigan recognized during Adoption Day and Month
- Reproductive Health Act signed into law
- Case study: Documentary highlights history of courts in the Eastern District
headlines National
- March 1, 1828: Sojourner Truth goes to court
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- DOJ nominees hedge on whether court orders must always be followed
- DNA evidence in open cases explored in ABC reality series
- Which law-related films have won Oscars? You may be surprised (photo gallery)
- ‘Radical agreement’ could lead to Supreme Court victory for reverse-discrimination plaintiff