text stringlengths 12 234k | embeddings listlengths 128 128 |
|---|---|
On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we VACATE our order of September 22, 2017. The application for leave to appeal the September 6, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals is DENIED, because we are no longer persu... | [
-111,
120,
-4,
44,
40,
96,
-13,
-99,
64,
-117,
103,
83,
-83,
-78,
16,
123,
-53,
15,
117,
123,
-49,
-95,
83,
80,
118,
-13,
-37,
-35,
-9,
126,
-12,
125,
76,
32,
-102,
-43,
70,
-53,
-55,
84,
-114,
7,
-71,
109,
81,
9,
48,
42,
... |
On March 7, 2018, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the November 17, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), and in light of the prosecutor's concession that defendant's argument that trial counsel... | [
-48,
-6,
-34,
-116,
42,
-32,
114,
-36,
67,
-125,
-89,
-13,
-81,
-34,
17,
123,
-5,
127,
96,
105,
-34,
-93,
86,
98,
119,
-77,
-102,
85,
51,
78,
-28,
123,
76,
112,
-54,
-43,
70,
-56,
-51,
94,
-122,
-115,
-71,
108,
113,
65,
52,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-108,
108,
-33,
-84,
-118,
-32,
83,
29,
65,
-89,
127,
-45,
-81,
-46,
20,
127,
-99,
15,
116,
91,
-53,
-78,
55,
-64,
114,
-13,
-38,
-35,
-13,
110,
-12,
56,
78,
-32,
-38,
-108,
70,
-55,
-23,
-48,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
73,
56,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 26, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-111,
-24,
-33,
-68,
-88,
-32,
115,
29,
64,
-89,
127,
-47,
-81,
-6,
-108,
127,
-68,
15,
116,
91,
95,
-77,
87,
-64,
114,
-13,
-42,
-35,
115,
111,
-12,
56,
14,
96,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
-55,
-48,
-114,
7,
-103,
-51,
-47,
19,
56,... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the time for filing their supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted for filing if submitted on or before August 17, 2018. | [
124,
114,
-76,
-116,
42,
33,
56,
-66,
97,
-37,
103,
83,
-73,
-54,
4,
125,
-17,
107,
71,
-13,
-49,
-77,
103,
89,
119,
-13,
-13,
-33,
116,
126,
-12,
-33,
76,
-14,
-54,
85,
70,
-56,
-119,
30,
-114,
9,
-103,
-32,
-47,
104,
32,
... |
Murphy, J.
The prosecution appeals by leave granted the circuit court's order denying its motion to amend the information to reinstate a count of larceny by conversion of $20,000 or more, MCL 750.362 ; MCL 750.356(2)(a), which count the district court had dismissed following defendant's preliminary examination. The dis... | [
80,
-5,
-8,
-67,
74,
-96,
50,
-70,
67,
-63,
39,
83,
109,
-14,
16,
59,
-9,
127,
108,
96,
-41,
-93,
70,
99,
-10,
-77,
-23,
-43,
-75,
79,
-28,
89,
12,
48,
-126,
-43,
70,
-118,
-29,
88,
14,
-123,
10,
-54,
-7,
69,
52,
-85,
21... |
Per Curiam.
Plaintiffs, Southfield Education Association (the union) and Velma Smith, appeal as of right an order denying plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition of Count I (violation of MCL 380.1248 ) of plaintiffs' five-count complaint and, instead, granting summary disposition in favor of defendants, the Board of... | [
-106,
-22,
76,
-4,
40,
-95,
50,
-98,
57,
-47,
37,
-45,
-83,
-127,
31,
43,
-13,
105,
80,
123,
-58,
-94,
115,
-94,
-74,
-45,
-6,
87,
-69,
86,
-16,
-36,
76,
48,
-126,
-43,
70,
74,
-55,
80,
-122,
4,
-87,
-23,
121,
-61,
60,
123... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 28, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-112,
-52,
-35,
-84,
-88,
-32,
115,
21,
65,
-89,
127,
-47,
-81,
-14,
-108,
127,
-68,
15,
116,
-37,
-37,
-77,
23,
-64,
114,
-13,
-42,
-36,
-11,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
96,
-102,
-108,
70,
-55,
107,
-16,
-114,
7,
-35,
77,
-47,
25,
5... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 20, 2017 and October 19, 2017 orders of the Court of Appeals is considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Court of Appeals orders, and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals, as on reconsidera... | [
-112,
-8,
-36,
-84,
42,
97,
115,
-68,
65,
-109,
103,
-45,
-81,
-13,
-108,
123,
-33,
111,
117,
121,
-1,
-95,
70,
65,
54,
-13,
-109,
-33,
55,
94,
-26,
63,
72,
-32,
10,
-107,
70,
-55,
-17,
92,
-114,
7,
-39,
-51,
-15,
11,
48,
... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellee to file a response to the amicus brief filed by the Elder Law and Disability Rights Section of the State Bar of Michigan and the Michigan Chapter, National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys is GRANTED. The response submitted on August 1, 2018, is accepted for... | [
-16,
113,
-12,
-119,
10,
97,
48,
-66,
99,
-47,
39,
115,
-17,
-102,
-107,
119,
-17,
107,
71,
-5,
-33,
51,
118,
105,
92,
-13,
-29,
-33,
34,
126,
-92,
19,
72,
-16,
-54,
92,
-58,
-54,
-51,
30,
70,
13,
-117,
-31,
-15,
-40,
52,
... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of defendants-appellants to extend the time for filing their replies are GRANTED. The replies will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before August 28, 2018. | [
124,
112,
-4,
-51,
42,
33,
57,
-68,
97,
-37,
103,
19,
-75,
-50,
-108,
125,
-53,
107,
-43,
-21,
76,
-89,
119,
121,
55,
-47,
-13,
-33,
124,
111,
-12,
-35,
76,
112,
-54,
21,
-42,
-56,
-87,
28,
-58,
1,
-39,
-28,
-47,
72,
32,
4... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to file a surreply is GRANTED. The surreply submitted on August 1, 2018, is accepted for filing. | [
116,
112,
-28,
108,
10,
97,
49,
-66,
99,
-45,
103,
83,
-17,
-50,
22,
119,
-25,
107,
-58,
114,
93,
-89,
39,
-39,
112,
-13,
-61,
85,
120,
110,
-28,
-68,
78,
-16,
-118,
85,
-58,
-40,
-123,
-100,
-114,
13,
-87,
-32,
-15,
76,
-96... |
Zahra, J.
The Tobacco Products Tax Act (TPTA) requires a manufacturer of a tobacco product to be licensed with the Michigan Department of Treasury before purchasing, possessing, acquiring for resale, or selling that product in Michigan. Criminal liability may arise from the failure to comply with the licensing requirem... | [
-112,
-13,
124,
-116,
58,
-32,
26,
-66,
91,
-93,
-25,
115,
-27,
118,
-75,
35,
107,
127,
112,
107,
-4,
-77,
51,
2,
-58,
-101,
-104,
-45,
-79,
75,
-44,
-4,
12,
48,
-54,
93,
69,
30,
-59,
90,
-62,
8,
11,
-31,
81,
65,
36,
15,
... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellee to extend the time for filing its brief is GRANTED. The brief submitted on June 8, 2018, is accepted for filing. | [
116,
112,
-68,
-51,
11,
32,
49,
-98,
100,
-55,
39,
83,
-1,
-54,
4,
127,
-17,
111,
71,
83,
-13,
-77,
39,
89,
-10,
-13,
-45,
95,
120,
110,
-10,
-2,
12,
112,
-62,
21,
-58,
-56,
-55,
92,
-58,
9,
-103,
-32,
-47,
111,
32,
57,
... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time for filing his supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief submitted on June 12, 2018, is accepted for filing. | [
116,
112,
-68,
-51,
26,
32,
56,
-68,
100,
-37,
103,
83,
-9,
-54,
4,
127,
-49,
105,
71,
-45,
-28,
-77,
103,
-39,
-10,
-13,
-45,
95,
120,
126,
-10,
62,
12,
112,
-118,
21,
70,
-40,
-55,
-98,
-122,
9,
-103,
-32,
-47,
96,
36,
5... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Public Employees Service Employees International Union Local 517M to join the brief amicus curiae of the Michigan League for Public Policy is GRANTED. The joint amicus brief submitted on June 13, 2018, is accepted for filing. | [
-4,
121,
112,
-51,
10,
97,
18,
-98,
113,
-15,
37,
115,
101,
-110,
55,
119,
-21,
63,
66,
119,
-23,
19,
70,
-54,
-35,
-45,
-29,
-51,
-72,
126,
-68,
120,
68,
-15,
-118,
-36,
-58,
-106,
-55,
30,
-58,
13,
75,
-32,
-47,
80,
52,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-111,
-20,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-16,
-45,
31,
65,
-25,
127,
-41,
-81,
-14,
-112,
127,
-68,
15,
117,
123,
-53,
-78,
23,
-63,
114,
-45,
-98,
-34,
-15,
110,
-11,
58,
14,
96,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
107,
112,
-114,
7,
-39,
-51,
-47,
43,
... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees.
Within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $26.00; submit... | [
80,
-15,
109,
-36,
11,
97,
11,
-102,
66,
-13,
102,
87,
-25,
70,
4,
123,
-29,
127,
117,
121,
79,
-77,
103,
99,
-78,
-13,
-111,
-43,
-69,
111,
-20,
-74,
12,
-24,
-86,
-108,
70,
-126,
-95,
92,
78,
3,
-103,
-59,
-47,
67,
32,
3... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the time for filing its answer to the applications for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before July 17, 2018. | [
-4,
112,
-4,
-116,
42,
33,
48,
-100,
69,
-37,
103,
83,
-83,
-54,
20,
127,
-49,
43,
-57,
-13,
-53,
-73,
119,
-39,
83,
-13,
-45,
93,
124,
126,
-12,
61,
76,
82,
10,
-108,
-58,
-56,
-55,
28,
-58,
15,
-103,
-20,
-47,
78,
40,
57... |
Per Curiam In these consolidated appeals, the parties appeal by leave granted different portions of an order entered by the trial court vacating part of an arbitration award and remanding the matter to the arbitrator. This case arises out of a divorce proceeding commenced in early 2011 that resulted in the entry of a j... | [
-80,
120,
-35,
92,
10,
48,
26,
-70,
120,
-113,
-89,
-47,
-69,
-30,
16,
123,
-10,
43,
96,
106,
91,
-77,
22,
64,
95,
-77,
-80,
-47,
-79,
110,
-91,
-42,
76,
98,
-126,
-43,
102,
-45,
-53,
20,
10,
-121,
-69,
108,
88,
6,
48,
-70... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 11, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Bernstein, J., would grant leave to appeal. | [
-112,
104,
-35,
-84,
-86,
-32,
-77,
-100,
65,
-89,
119,
83,
-83,
-45,
20,
127,
-115,
79,
100,
91,
-33,
-74,
23,
-63,
114,
-13,
-37,
93,
-15,
111,
-12,
120,
78,
96,
-118,
-108,
70,
-63,
-21,
20,
-122,
7,
-39,
13,
-47,
64,
48,... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees.
Within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $10.00; submit... | [
80,
-15,
-19,
-36,
11,
97,
11,
-102,
66,
-13,
102,
87,
-17,
86,
4,
123,
-21,
63,
117,
125,
79,
-77,
103,
99,
-86,
-13,
-111,
-43,
-69,
111,
-20,
-74,
12,
-24,
-86,
-108,
70,
-126,
-95,
92,
78,
3,
-103,
-59,
-15,
67,
32,
33... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 2, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-128,
108,
-43,
-84,
-86,
-32,
-13,
21,
73,
-89,
103,
83,
-83,
-46,
20,
127,
-20,
79,
117,
91,
95,
-73,
19,
-32,
114,
-14,
-37,
92,
-11,
111,
-12,
56,
78,
96,
-118,
-44,
70,
-63,
72,
88,
-122,
7,
-40,
-113,
-39,
1,
48,
99,... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 5, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the issue whether the defendant federal border patrol agents were "public officers" for purposes of the common-law crime of misconduct in office when they assisted... | [
-16,
-6,
-1,
-68,
42,
97,
-80,
-67,
81,
-5,
101,
19,
-83,
-62,
21,
123,
-5,
63,
53,
107,
-40,
-78,
87,
-126,
126,
-13,
-6,
-55,
51,
78,
-4,
114,
25,
112,
-126,
-44,
70,
78,
-113,
90,
-50,
37,
-71,
-21,
-15,
80,
52,
123,
... |
Per Curiam.
We are asked in this appeal to determine whether a claim based on a theory of unjust enrichment is barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity. We conclude that it is not.
This is the second time that this case is before us. See Genesee Co. Drain Comm'r v. Genesee Co. , 309 Mich.App. 317, 869 N.W.2d 635... | [
-80,
-4,
-99,
-4,
-119,
-96,
48,
26,
91,
-94,
-89,
83,
-11,
-10,
-123,
47,
-9,
113,
100,
114,
-41,
-93,
19,
3,
-4,
-78,
-87,
85,
-16,
79,
-28,
-20,
76,
112,
-118,
-43,
98,
38,
-55,
22,
-126,
14,
-86,
77,
-7,
64,
52,
-53,
... |
Per Curiam.
This case returns to us after we remanded to the trial court for it to properly articulate its rationale for imposing consecutive sentences. Defendant was convicted of seven drug offenses, five of which were under MCL 333.7401, which provides trial courts the discretion to impose consecutive sentences.
MCL ... | [
112,
-30,
-100,
-3,
10,
98,
18,
84,
81,
-53,
101,
115,
-81,
-42,
-107,
105,
59,
127,
69,
97,
-43,
-93,
38,
67,
-9,
-13,
-126,
-48,
55,
79,
39,
127,
12,
112,
-126,
117,
98,
10,
119,
86,
-114,
13,
-72,
101,
88,
-126,
116,
11... |
Swartzle, J.
In this medical-malpractice suit, plaintiff Rolla Mitchell sued defendant Bernard Mason Smith III, M.D., and the doctor's former employer, defendant Kalamazoo Anesthesiology, PC. Plaintiff claimed that Dr. Smith negligently performed certain post-operative services that permanently injured the phrenic nerv... | [
112,
-20,
104,
-35,
8,
-29,
32,
58,
121,
66,
39,
115,
-83,
-118,
-115,
107,
-91,
63,
81,
113,
86,
-77,
67,
97,
-14,
-73,
-46,
-57,
-80,
-18,
-28,
-99,
77,
48,
-62,
-43,
70,
11,
-35,
80,
-50,
-124,
-71,
-21,
81,
-111,
-12,
... |
Per Curiam.
Defendant Conor Lewis rear-ended plaintiff Michelle Wagner. Conor's father (defendant Greg Lewis), Michelle, and Michelle's husband (plaintiff James Wagner), had automobile insurance policies with defendant Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Michigan. The accident spurred multiple lawsuits. The instant... | [
-14,
124,
125,
-20,
11,
33,
34,
26,
81,
-59,
39,
19,
-17,
-26,
-107,
41,
-5,
93,
65,
-40,
-43,
-93,
87,
-126,
-12,
-77,
-93,
-59,
-78,
75,
45,
40,
77,
48,
-118,
69,
-28,
-102,
-123,
60,
-118,
14,
-69,
-21,
-103,
-45,
-12,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 6, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Viviano, J., did not participate due to a familial relationship with the presiding cir... | [
-43,
104,
-1,
-68,
-120,
-32,
-93,
60,
64,
-125,
119,
-45,
-81,
-6,
16,
127,
12,
47,
118,
91,
-37,
-78,
31,
-64,
114,
-13,
-38,
93,
-13,
111,
-10,
58,
72,
32,
-70,
-44,
70,
-61,
-87,
80,
-114,
13,
-39,
45,
-47,
66,
56,
115... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to file an answer in excess of the page limitation is GRANTED. The 58-page answer submitted on March 20, 2018, is accepted for filing. | [
-76,
116,
-4,
77,
-116,
97,
49,
-100,
75,
-111,
-89,
83,
-81,
-38,
-124,
121,
-25,
107,
-43,
82,
67,
-73,
119,
-47,
-74,
-13,
-86,
85,
124,
107,
-20,
-7,
77,
16,
-118,
5,
-58,
-54,
-51,
28,
-122,
-128,
-103,
-28,
-47,
-30,
4... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 9, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-116,
108,
-9,
-84,
-120,
-16,
-13,
31,
65,
-73,
63,
-47,
-83,
-6,
-124,
127,
-68,
15,
116,
-38,
-33,
-79,
119,
81,
122,
-45,
-109,
95,
-13,
126,
-28,
56,
14,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
73,
-40,
-114,
7,
-35,
77,
-47,
11,
32,
... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiffs-appellees to extend the time for filing their answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer will be accepted for filing if submitted on or before May 3, 2018. | [
-4,
112,
-4,
12,
40,
97,
112,
-108,
69,
-45,
103,
83,
-83,
-38,
20,
125,
-17,
111,
-41,
-37,
74,
-73,
39,
-8,
51,
-13,
-37,
93,
124,
110,
-12,
-36,
12,
83,
-118,
-108,
70,
-56,
-55,
28,
-122,
7,
-101,
-20,
-47,
66,
8,
57,
... |
O'Connell, J.
This case addressing defendant, Larry Gerald Mead's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches returns to us on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court. Mead appeals as of right his conviction, following a jury trial, of possessing methamphetamine, MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i ), as a fourth-offe... | [
-80,
-18,
93,
-68,
43,
96,
50,
54,
115,
-1,
-96,
83,
-83,
-47,
21,
59,
-5,
127,
112,
105,
-33,
-73,
67,
-29,
-42,
-45,
122,
-63,
115,
75,
44,
-8,
76,
-80,
-61,
-43,
70,
25,
-9,
90,
-122,
1,
-79,
83,
80,
-40,
36,
58,
90,
... |
Boonstra, J.
Defendant appeals by right his convictions, following a jury trial, of unlawful imprisonment, MCL 750.349b, assault with a dangerous weapon, MCL 750.82, and domestic violence, MCL 750.81(2), as a lesser included offense of aggravated domestic violence, MCL 750.81a(2). Defendant was acquitted of an addition... | [
-15,
-14,
-3,
-3,
47,
33,
34,
-68,
114,
-125,
-25,
-13,
-91,
-50,
13,
107,
40,
127,
101,
121,
-37,
-93,
103,
-63,
-74,
-69,
-79,
-45,
-77,
75,
-12,
-11,
24,
-32,
-62,
125,
66,
2,
-89,
92,
-114,
-115,
-85,
96,
80,
-62,
36,
... |
On order of the Court, the requests by the House of Representatives and the Senate for an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of 2018 PA 368 and 2018 PA 369 are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument for Wednesday, July 17, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. MCR 7.308(B)(3).
We invite the House of Representati... | [
125,
-28,
119,
-36,
42,
-63,
32,
-106,
113,
-93,
-91,
83,
-81,
-38,
-108,
113,
-49,
51,
87,
107,
-52,
-89,
115,
73,
50,
-13,
-73,
87,
-6,
-5,
-10,
-10,
12,
-26,
82,
-59,
70,
-62,
-119,
30,
-86,
-83,
29,
-32,
-15,
-63,
52,
... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to suspend fees is considered and it is GRANTED. As appellant is aware, MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees.
Appellant is not required to pay an initial partial fee. However, for the appeal to continue, within 21 days of the d... | [
-48,
-16,
-22,
-36,
11,
113,
43,
-98,
64,
-77,
-25,
87,
-19,
70,
4,
123,
-29,
127,
101,
121,
79,
-77,
103,
65,
-78,
-13,
-111,
-43,
49,
79,
-20,
-74,
72,
-69,
-118,
-108,
70,
-126,
-63,
92,
14,
-125,
-103,
-59,
-15,
67,
32,
... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of respondent judge to file a corrected brief in support of the petition is GRANTED. The corrected brief submitted on May 21, 2019, is accepted for filing. | [
-76,
117,
-12,
77,
10,
96,
17,
-114,
-28,
-47,
102,
83,
-25,
-38,
20,
119,
-21,
107,
87,
123,
-17,
-77,
7,
-23,
114,
-45,
-45,
95,
112,
125,
116,
-105,
74,
-32,
-118,
-36,
70,
-56,
-63,
28,
-50,
15,
-103,
-31,
-63,
73,
32,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 10, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-119,
-36,
-43,
-84,
-118,
-32,
-13,
29,
64,
-25,
127,
-45,
-81,
-14,
20,
127,
-84,
15,
118,
-37,
-49,
-77,
23,
-64,
122,
-13,
-38,
-36,
51,
110,
-12,
58,
14,
-16,
-118,
-108,
70,
-63,
105,
-112,
-114,
7,
-103,
77,
-47,
8,
4... |
On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the January 25, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered, and they are GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) when the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued, see Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. , 501 Mich. 965, 905 N.W.2d 60... | [
-76,
-18,
-36,
-84,
8,
97,
50,
-73,
67,
-61,
39,
83,
-81,
-14,
-123,
127,
-1,
59,
81,
123,
83,
-93,
7,
-62,
-10,
-77,
-37,
85,
56,
78,
102,
-6,
12,
96,
-62,
-43,
-58,
-126,
-59,
94,
-118,
-121,
9,
-19,
-7,
72,
56,
-85,
1... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 17, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-98,
108,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
115,
21,
65,
-89,
103,
-45,
-83,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
116,
91,
-33,
-79,
87,
-55,
114,
-45,
-38,
-35,
-13,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
-16,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
105,
16,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
92,
40,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 3, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. On the Court's own motion, we VACATE the November 1, 2018 order denying the defendant's... | [
-48,
-8,
-44,
-84,
8,
-32,
-13,
-67,
64,
-57,
103,
83,
-89,
-14,
-112,
123,
-121,
15,
117,
123,
79,
-77,
71,
97,
-74,
-45,
-45,
-35,
-13,
-17,
-12,
-73,
14,
-24,
-14,
-107,
70,
-63,
-19,
-48,
-114,
5,
-103,
77,
-15,
75,
48,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-108,
88,
-35,
-68,
-86,
-32,
115,
-99,
65,
-73,
103,
-45,
-81,
-14,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
116,
-37,
-33,
-75,
87,
72,
114,
-45,
-5,
-36,
51,
110,
-12,
56,
78,
-32,
-102,
-43,
70,
-55,
73,
-112,
-114,
7,
-7,
77,
-47,
88,
40,
9... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of Trappers Properties et al . to participate as amicus curiae and to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief will be accepted for filing if submitted within 21 days of the date of this order. | [
117,
-16,
116,
76,
10,
112,
48,
-66,
67,
-31,
102,
115,
39,
74,
20,
115,
-41,
111,
39,
-5,
-51,
-74,
103,
73,
48,
-13,
-45,
-37,
120,
126,
-12,
-106,
72,
37,
-54,
21,
-42,
-86,
-119,
28,
94,
43,
-120,
-32,
-63,
104,
40,
43... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-107,
108,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
115,
29,
64,
-25,
103,
-45,
-83,
-46,
-108,
127,
-19,
15,
118,
91,
-53,
-77,
23,
96,
114,
-45,
-37,
93,
51,
110,
-12,
120,
14,
96,
-118,
-108,
70,
-63,
73,
80,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-111,
8,
0,
... |
On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the July 17, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered, and they are GRANTED. The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).
Persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue presented in this mat... | [
124,
112,
-90,
-116,
42,
64,
48,
-98,
85,
107,
-89,
83,
-81,
-54,
20,
121,
-21,
61,
113,
-21,
-54,
-93,
87,
66,
105,
-5,
114,
-35,
62,
111,
-12,
54,
76,
-44,
-118,
20,
70,
-54,
-55,
30,
-50,
-99,
-104,
-23,
-15,
-55,
32,
1... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 18, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-104,
124,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-16,
-61,
29,
65,
-81,
111,
-45,
-83,
-14,
20,
127,
-19,
15,
102,
91,
-33,
-79,
55,
64,
114,
-15,
-98,
-36,
119,
110,
-12,
120,
10,
112,
-102,
-108,
70,
-55,
73,
-104,
-116,
7,
-39,
-51,
-47,
89,
4... |
On order of the Court, the motion to expedite and for other relief is considered, and it is GRANTED in part. We ORDER that the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals be held in ABEYANCE pending the decisions in Mays v. Governor (Docket Nos. 157335-7, 157340-2), --- Mich. -... | [
-108,
104,
-44,
12,
42,
97,
51,
-65,
65,
-13,
101,
83,
-89,
-38,
-112,
127,
-65,
111,
113,
91,
81,
-77,
118,
-32,
118,
-77,
-61,
-49,
127,
102,
-28,
-69,
12,
-32,
-118,
-44,
70,
-63,
73,
16,
-114,
33,
-85,
-23,
-47,
11,
48,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 23, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-100,
-20,
-35,
-68,
-88,
-16,
-13,
29,
65,
-89,
47,
-45,
-81,
-46,
-108,
127,
-67,
15,
116,
91,
-54,
-77,
23,
-64,
114,
-45,
-97,
93,
115,
110,
-12,
57,
10,
96,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
105,
-38,
-114,
7,
-99,
-51,
-111,
65,
48,... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 3, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-127,
-8,
-43,
-68,
-88,
112,
-45,
21,
65,
-29,
127,
-45,
-81,
-70,
20,
127,
13,
15,
101,
91,
95,
-75,
55,
65,
114,
-45,
-41,
-33,
113,
110,
-28,
56,
14,
112,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
73,
28,
-114,
7,
89,
77,
-47,
10,
40,
-93,... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 29, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-112,
76,
-43,
-84,
-120,
-16,
-13,
21,
65,
-89,
63,
-47,
-83,
-14,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
118,
-37,
-35,
-77,
55,
-64,
114,
-45,
-106,
93,
-15,
110,
-12,
58,
14,
-16,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
75,
-40,
-114,
7,
-35,
77,
-47,
25,
56,
... |
By order of April 3, 2019, the Clerk scheduled these cases for oral argument to be held July 17, 2019. The Court respectfully directs the Attorney General to file separate supplemental briefs by 5:00 p.m. on July 10, 2019, addressing both sides of the following questions: (1) whether this Court has jurisdiction to issu... | [
-11,
-30,
-1,
-100,
10,
64,
50,
-80,
97,
-29,
-27,
83,
45,
-54,
20,
121,
-33,
123,
85,
107,
-60,
-73,
114,
-23,
118,
-13,
-14,
-41,
-14,
126,
-10,
62,
76,
-31,
74,
-43,
70,
-114,
-55,
22,
-114,
-116,
-103,
104,
-47,
-63,
52,... |
On order of the Chief Justice, Appellant having failed to submit a copy of the May 17, 2019 order and refile a copy of the pleadings as required by the June 4, 2019 order, the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close this file. | [
-80,
116,
-60,
-51,
-82,
33,
19,
63,
68,
-125,
103,
83,
-113,
-122,
20,
127,
109,
127,
-11,
59,
79,
-78,
63,
-56,
114,
-45,
-61,
-43,
109,
125,
-11,
-66,
74,
-88,
-102,
13,
70,
-128,
-119,
-36,
94,
43,
89,
117,
65,
104,
0,
... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the second motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time for filing its brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before June 12, 2019. | [
-12,
112,
-68,
-51,
10,
32,
49,
-68,
96,
-63,
102,
82,
-9,
-54,
20,
127,
-49,
105,
-41,
-37,
-25,
-73,
55,
73,
-10,
-13,
-45,
95,
124,
127,
-10,
-1,
12,
-16,
-118,
-43,
-58,
-56,
-119,
28,
-50,
11,
27,
-32,
-47,
106,
36,
5... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the joint motion for relief from the December 14, 2018 order and for adjournment of the filing deadline for the formal complaint is GRANTED. The time for the Judicial Tenure Commission to file a formal complaint is extended to June 21, 2019, and the time for the commission to submit its r... | [
-68,
99,
-3,
-52,
10,
113,
51,
-66,
103,
83,
103,
87,
-89,
-54,
-112,
119,
11,
101,
-41,
99,
75,
-74,
119,
97,
70,
-45,
-45,
-33,
61,
111,
-12,
-67,
72,
120,
-118,
-44,
-42,
-56,
-55,
22,
-26,
39,
-53,
-28,
-47,
72,
32,
57... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 7, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on leave granted, of whether the Parole Board clearly abused it... | [
16,
-8,
-35,
-99,
42,
-32,
-101,
-107,
65,
-45,
55,
83,
-81,
-65,
17,
123,
75,
127,
86,
121,
-35,
-73,
119,
-95,
107,
-13,
-37,
86,
49,
110,
-28,
-8,
74,
96,
-118,
-44,
70,
-56,
-63,
80,
-114,
5,
-39,
-51,
-47,
74,
48,
67,... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. We note that a similar issue was presente... | [
-112,
-16,
-35,
-99,
42,
-31,
58,
-107,
65,
-45,
103,
81,
-83,
-33,
17,
123,
-101,
103,
119,
-5,
-35,
-73,
103,
-64,
-22,
-13,
-77,
-34,
57,
126,
-26,
-8,
78,
96,
-118,
80,
70,
-56,
-29,
84,
-114,
-123,
-39,
-19,
-47,
107,
4... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 27, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, there being no majority in favor of granting leave to appeal or taking other action. | [
-99,
104,
-44,
-68,
-118,
96,
-45,
85,
65,
-93,
55,
-45,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-99,
15,
117,
-5,
-51,
-77,
23,
-63,
106,
-13,
-97,
93,
-77,
-25,
-12,
58,
12,
-16,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
77,
90,
-114,
23,
-39,
77,
-47,
25,
56,
107... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 7, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that the terms "child" and "beneficiary" in MCL 700.1105(c) are not ... | [
-44,
104,
-36,
-68,
-70,
-32,
50,
-106,
67,
-41,
39,
81,
47,
-46,
-108,
127,
-5,
63,
99,
-5,
-37,
-79,
87,
-64,
118,
-5,
-109,
-35,
51,
94,
-26,
63,
76,
34,
10,
-43,
70,
-120,
-19,
80,
-114,
5,
-101,
77,
-39,
64,
52,
99,
... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiffs-appellees to extend the time for filing their answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer submitted on June 13, 2019, is accepted for filing. | [
-12,
112,
-4,
12,
8,
96,
49,
-108,
101,
-47,
103,
83,
-27,
-38,
20,
127,
-17,
47,
-57,
-13,
-53,
-73,
55,
-48,
-13,
-13,
-45,
93,
124,
126,
-28,
125,
76,
81,
10,
-44,
-58,
-56,
-55,
28,
-58,
-113,
-103,
-20,
-47,
106,
8,
5... |
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2019 orders of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-107,
120,
-44,
-116,
-120,
112,
-77,
-75,
65,
-25,
103,
83,
-81,
-6,
-112,
123,
-115,
7,
117,
-5,
93,
-73,
55,
65,
-10,
-13,
-45,
94,
-15,
110,
-28,
59,
78,
-16,
-102,
-108,
70,
-56,
75,
20,
-114,
15,
-7,
109,
-15,
94,
40,
... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees.
Appellant is not required to pay an initial partial fee. However, for an appeal to be filed, within 21 days of the date of this order, a... | [
-48,
-16,
-19,
-36,
11,
97,
11,
-98,
66,
-13,
102,
87,
-17,
70,
4,
127,
-21,
63,
117,
121,
79,
-77,
103,
67,
-78,
-5,
-127,
-43,
-77,
111,
-20,
-74,
8,
-7,
-86,
-108,
70,
-126,
-95,
92,
78,
-125,
-103,
-59,
-63,
67,
32,
33... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of petitioner-appellee to extend the time for filing and to exceed the page limitation for its answer is GRANTED. The answer will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before June 13, 2019. | [
116,
112,
-11,
-51,
10,
32,
49,
-98,
101,
81,
103,
83,
-9,
-54,
20,
125,
-21,
43,
-41,
-45,
-58,
-89,
119,
-39,
50,
-13,
-45,
95,
124,
127,
-12,
63,
76,
112,
-54,
21,
-58,
-56,
-119,
28,
-58,
-85,
25,
-28,
-47,
98,
40,
56,... |
Gadola, J.
In Docket No. 340600, appellant Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity (ABATE) appeals as of right the final order of appellee Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) in its Case No. U-18197. In Docket No. 340607, appellant Energy Michigan, Inc. (Energy Michigan) appeals as of right the same or... | [
-48,
-6,
-33,
-84,
40,
-96,
16,
-102,
91,
-14,
-25,
-41,
-17,
-46,
-105,
95,
-33,
123,
112,
115,
-47,
-94,
70,
99,
-41,
-77,
-13,
-25,
-80,
95,
116,
-19,
72,
104,
-62,
85,
-58,
-126,
-19,
94,
38,
-119,
-85,
97,
-39,
-63,
118... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of conservator and successor trustee Mary Lyneis to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on December 17, 2018, is accepted for filing. On further order of the Chief Justice, the motion of appellants to file a response to the amicus brief and the mot... | [
-11,
112,
-12,
76,
10,
97,
50,
-66,
65,
-93,
39,
83,
-75,
-118,
84,
119,
-1,
105,
-41,
-5,
-53,
-92,
127,
-63,
56,
-14,
-45,
95,
96,
110,
-11,
-42,
8,
-15,
-54,
20,
-42,
-62,
-55,
28,
14,
15,
40,
-96,
-47,
104,
32,
-79,
... |
Servitto, J.
This case is before us, as on reconsideration granted, People v. Smith , 501 Mich. 851, 899 N.W.2d 407, 2017 WL 3496629 (2017), to determine whether the trial court's order declaring a portion of defendant's plea agreement void was in error and whether the trial court's subsequent order denying the prosecu... | [
-16,
-24,
-48,
-8,
10,
33,
58,
-100,
-78,
-13,
39,
-45,
-83,
58,
16,
59,
123,
123,
65,
107,
-59,
-93,
70,
-29,
-73,
-109,
-54,
93,
-77,
79,
-3,
-67,
92,
96,
82,
125,
70,
-102,
-25,
92,
-122,
-111,
-120,
-32,
-46,
64,
52,
4... |
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff, Gary Nitzkin, appeals by leave granted the circuit court's order affirming the district court's orders granting summary disposition in favor of defendants, Guardian Alarm Company of Michigan and Robert Craig, also known as Law Offices of Robert M. Craig & Associates. For the reasons stated in thi... | [
-48,
124,
-8,
-84,
8,
-31,
58,
-86,
97,
-39,
-93,
115,
63,
-30,
22,
43,
-13,
123,
117,
104,
-44,
-78,
118,
2,
94,
-77,
-13,
-39,
-79,
94,
-28,
-116,
77,
96,
-54,
-107,
118,
-109,
-17,
-40,
-50,
1,
25,
101,
-7,
-64,
52,
-69... |
Borrello, P.J.
Intervenor-appellant, the Michigan Parole Board (the Board), appeals by leave granted the circuit court's order reversing the Board's grant of parole to defendant, Ronald Neil Spears. The circuit court's order was entered after appellee, the Monroe County prosecutor (the prosecutor), appealed by leave gr... | [
-112,
-22,
-34,
-99,
11,
98,
30,
-76,
65,
-13,
115,
115,
-81,
-14,
1,
43,
-21,
127,
105,
121,
-47,
-74,
119,
33,
-9,
-77,
91,
87,
-72,
111,
-28,
-7,
10,
112,
-54,
117,
68,
-128,
-3,
80,
-114,
-121,
-117,
-23,
17,
-55,
48,
... |
Gadola, J.
At issue in these consolidated appeals are the charges brought against each defendant for three counts of conducting a gambling operation without a license, MCL 432.218(1)(a), and three counts of using a computer to commit a crime, MCL 752.796 and MCL 752.797(3)(e). After conducting a preliminary examination... | [
-16,
-2,
-4,
-4,
88,
-32,
48,
-66,
75,
-127,
-13,
19,
109,
-30,
20,
57,
-13,
127,
88,
127,
-14,
-94,
39,
34,
-12,
-69,
-85,
-59,
-80,
79,
-4,
-47,
88,
-32,
-114,
117,
86,
18,
-25,
90,
2,
5,
11,
65,
81,
75,
36,
59,
42,
... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellee CVS Caremark to extend the time for filing its answer to the application for leave to appeal in No. 159055 is GRANTED. The answer submitted on April 11, 2019, is accepted as timely filed. | [
-12,
112,
60,
-116,
10,
97,
113,
-106,
65,
67,
39,
83,
-67,
-29,
-108,
123,
-21,
47,
103,
-33,
-53,
-77,
23,
-63,
-10,
-13,
-6,
93,
105,
127,
-12,
-2,
12,
-14,
-118,
-108,
-58,
-56,
-51,
28,
-58,
15,
-71,
-19,
17,
106,
0,
... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Lake & Stream Associations, Inc., to file a brief amicus curiae in support of the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on April 12, 2019, is accepted for filing. | [
-26,
113,
-2,
-56,
8,
98,
48,
-74,
73,
-7,
-25,
115,
47,
-110,
20,
119,
-49,
47,
101,
-5,
-62,
51,
119,
-62,
-36,
-13,
-5,
95,
-72,
126,
-4,
75,
12,
-15,
-118,
20,
-42,
-126,
-55,
26,
6,
-115,
58,
-23,
-47,
89,
52,
43,
2... |
On order of the Court, the recommendation of the Judicial Tenure Commission having been filed, together with the record as required by MCR 9.223, it is ORDERED that if a petition under MCR 9.224 is filed, oral argument on the petition and the response thereto will be heard on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. | [
-48,
-15,
-67,
-52,
42,
96,
19,
-72,
65,
19,
103,
83,
-25,
-54,
20,
93,
-113,
91,
-41,
107,
-20,
-67,
98,
-63,
98,
-45,
-41,
-41,
59,
127,
-12,
-73,
77,
122,
-118,
-35,
-58,
-56,
-55,
30,
-50,
-113,
-119,
97,
83,
72,
36,
4... |
Per Curiam.
Will contestant Lanora Jones appeals as of right the order of the Berrien County Probate Court recognizing an electronic document as the valid will of her son, Duane Francis Horton II. Because the trial court did not err by concluding that Guardianship and Alternatives, Inc. (GAI) established by clear and c... | [
115,
92,
-36,
29,
-117,
-96,
26,
10,
-45,
-61,
3,
83,
-17,
-62,
21,
43,
115,
79,
-47,
105,
81,
-77,
38,
97,
-44,
-13,
-14,
-41,
35,
-51,
-68,
95,
73,
98,
-120,
21,
-60,
8,
-25,
-43,
12,
75,
9,
-15,
89,
83,
56,
39,
94,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 27, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-115,
76,
-43,
-100,
-86,
-32,
-13,
21,
65,
-89,
47,
-45,
-83,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
117,
-37,
-49,
-79,
23,
73,
114,
-13,
-101,
93,
-13,
-18,
-12,
56,
14,
-16,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
107,
24,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
24,
40,
9... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 17, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-98,
108,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
115,
21,
65,
-89,
103,
-45,
-83,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
116,
91,
-33,
-79,
87,
-55,
114,
-45,
-38,
-35,
-13,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
-16,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
105,
16,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
92,
40,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 2, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-104,
104,
-35,
-84,
-88,
-32,
-13,
-99,
65,
-89,
111,
-45,
-81,
-78,
-108,
127,
-99,
15,
117,
91,
94,
-75,
87,
-31,
118,
-13,
-97,
-33,
117,
111,
-12,
56,
14,
112,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
73,
-104,
-116,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
11,
5... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 3, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-104,
104,
-35,
-84,
-88,
-32,
-13,
-99,
65,
-25,
127,
-45,
-81,
-70,
20,
127,
-99,
15,
116,
91,
94,
-75,
87,
-32,
114,
-13,
-33,
-33,
119,
110,
-12,
56,
14,
112,
-38,
-108,
70,
-63,
107,
-40,
-114,
7,
-103,
77,
-47,
11,
40,... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-112,
76,
-43,
-84,
-120,
-16,
-29,
21,
65,
-89,
63,
-47,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-84,
15,
118,
-37,
-37,
-77,
55,
-64,
114,
-13,
-46,
95,
-13,
110,
-12,
58,
14,
-32,
-38,
-108,
70,
-63,
75,
-40,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
25,
56,
9... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the time for filing their answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before June 11, 2019. | [
-44,
112,
-4,
-116,
42,
97,
113,
-100,
101,
83,
103,
83,
-27,
-38,
20,
127,
-53,
47,
-41,
-13,
-55,
-73,
119,
-55,
114,
-13,
-45,
93,
124,
126,
-74,
-3,
76,
80,
-118,
-44,
-58,
-56,
-55,
28,
-58,
15,
-103,
-20,
-47,
120,
40,... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of respondent-appellant to exceed the page limitation for his application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The 83-page application submitted on April 25, 2019, is accepted for filing. | [
-76,
116,
-4,
108,
10,
33,
49,
-66,
65,
-45,
103,
91,
-73,
-38,
4,
127,
-57,
111,
69,
123,
-55,
-73,
119,
-48,
50,
-77,
-101,
-43,
124,
111,
-28,
-5,
15,
-32,
-38,
21,
-58,
-56,
-55,
24,
-58,
7,
-119,
-83,
-47,
107,
42,
33... |
Per Curiam.
In an order dated June 8, 2018, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated Part II of this Court's prior opinion in this case, In re Brody Living Trust , 321 Mich. App. 304, 910 N.W.2d 348 (2017) ( Brody I ), and remanded this case to this Court for reconsideration "of its standing analysis." In re Brody Living Tru... | [
-15,
104,
-35,
108,
26,
96,
58,
-66,
115,
-109,
35,
-45,
-1,
-26,
85,
47,
122,
-5,
65,
99,
-13,
-95,
6,
34,
-42,
-14,
-71,
-49,
34,
94,
102,
-49,
76,
114,
-118,
-35,
86,
-113,
-49,
84,
-122,
5,
10,
109,
89,
-64,
52,
-85,
... |
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The petition for interim suspension is considered, and it is DENIED without prejudice to the filing of a petition for interim suspension by the Judicial Tenure Commission. Section 30(2) of Article 6 of the 1963 Constitution provides that the Cour... | [
-75,
106,
93,
-52,
10,
113,
-76,
-74,
-13,
-45,
119,
83,
-17,
-6,
-108,
127,
91,
111,
-63,
123,
89,
-80,
102,
65,
118,
-45,
-38,
-33,
-77,
-17,
116,
121,
76,
48,
-118,
-44,
70,
74,
-53,
84,
-126,
39,
-117,
-27,
-39,
-52,
48,... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time for filing its reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before January 22, 2019. | [
-12,
112,
-68,
-51,
10,
33,
49,
-102,
101,
81,
102,
83,
-11,
-54,
-108,
125,
-53,
107,
-43,
-5,
73,
-89,
55,
121,
114,
-45,
-61,
95,
124,
126,
-4,
-99,
76,
48,
-118,
21,
-42,
72,
-119,
28,
-50,
39,
25,
-28,
-47,
106,
32,
4... |
Gleicher, P.J.
The issue presented is whether the probate court erred by appointing a public guardian and conservator for Harold Gerstler, bypassing Gerstler's daughter, Angelee Gerstler. The Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.1101 et seq ., establishes an order of priority that must be followed whe... | [
-45,
108,
-52,
-4,
8,
33,
30,
24,
99,
-45,
51,
-41,
-85,
-54,
21,
43,
113,
43,
65,
123,
-43,
-78,
86,
32,
114,
-45,
-78,
-41,
-93,
110,
126,
-17,
108,
32,
-62,
-27,
-26,
-125,
-51,
82,
6,
64,
11,
-31,
-71,
-44,
52,
123,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-108,
121,
-43,
-116,
-118,
-32,
-13,
29,
65,
-25,
127,
-45,
-81,
-14,
20,
127,
-99,
15,
118,
-37,
-51,
-79,
23,
-56,
114,
-13,
-101,
94,
-13,
110,
-28,
58,
14,
-32,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
105,
16,
-116,
7,
-35,
77,
-47,
9,
40... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 20, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-115,
92,
-43,
-68,
-118,
-32,
-45,
29,
65,
-89,
111,
-45,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
117,
-37,
-37,
-79,
23,
81,
114,
-13,
-38,
93,
51,
110,
-12,
56,
78,
-16,
-118,
-44,
70,
-63,
73,
-104,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
88,
40,
9... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time for filing its reply is GRANTED. The reply submitted on November 29, 2018, is accepted as timely filed. | [
-12,
112,
-4,
-51,
10,
32,
49,
-66,
69,
-45,
-89,
19,
-75,
-54,
-108,
127,
-21,
107,
-41,
-13,
76,
-89,
39,
-7,
51,
-13,
-45,
95,
-4,
126,
-12,
63,
76,
112,
-54,
21,
86,
72,
-117,
-36,
-58,
7,
-39,
-28,
-47,
67,
-92,
57,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 1, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted, and we DIRECT that court to decide this case... | [
-108,
120,
-36,
-84,
42,
-31,
115,
-68,
65,
-37,
103,
-47,
-65,
-46,
-107,
123,
-49,
111,
102,
-5,
-35,
-75,
118,
81,
-10,
-13,
-77,
94,
119,
126,
-25,
59,
78,
-31,
-102,
-44,
70,
-64,
-55,
20,
-114,
5,
-5,
109,
-15,
11,
48,... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiffs-appellees to extend the time for filing their answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before January 22, 2019. | [
-12,
112,
-4,
12,
40,
97,
113,
-100,
97,
83,
103,
83,
-75,
-38,
-108,
127,
-53,
43,
-41,
-5,
-55,
55,
55,
-40,
114,
-13,
-45,
93,
124,
126,
-12,
-3,
12,
80,
-118,
-44,
-58,
-56,
-119,
28,
-50,
15,
-103,
-20,
-47,
106,
40,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-103,
120,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
-13,
29,
65,
-25,
111,
-45,
45,
-6,
-108,
127,
-67,
15,
117,
91,
77,
-77,
87,
-55,
114,
-13,
-101,
95,
115,
111,
-28,
58,
14,
-16,
-102,
-108,
70,
-64,
75,
24,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-15,
64,
40,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 26, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-115,
108,
-43,
-68,
-118,
-32,
-13,
29,
64,
-89,
127,
-45,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
116,
-37,
-33,
-77,
23,
-64,
114,
-13,
-45,
-35,
51,
110,
-12,
62,
14,
-16,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
107,
-112,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
16,
40... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees.
Appellant is not required to pay an initial partial fee. However, for the appeal to continue, within 21 days of the date of this order, ... | [
80,
-16,
-19,
-36,
11,
97,
11,
-98,
67,
-13,
102,
87,
-17,
70,
4,
127,
-21,
63,
117,
121,
79,
-77,
103,
97,
-78,
-5,
-103,
-43,
-77,
111,
-20,
-73,
8,
-15,
-86,
-108,
70,
-126,
-95,
92,
-50,
-125,
-103,
-59,
-15,
3,
32,
97... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-100,
124,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-16,
82,
29,
65,
-89,
103,
-45,
-81,
-46,
20,
127,
-19,
15,
118,
91,
-33,
-75,
23,
73,
114,
-45,
-101,
-36,
51,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
105,
-112,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-39,
9,
40,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 24, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-108,
108,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
115,
29,
65,
-89,
119,
-45,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
116,
91,
-53,
-80,
55,
72,
114,
-45,
-37,
93,
-77,
110,
-12,
56,
78,
-32,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
-23,
80,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-111,
72,
40,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. | [
-108,
120,
-100,
-116,
42,
96,
115,
-99,
65,
-37,
39,
83,
-65,
-46,
-107,
123,
-113,
79,
86,
-5,
-3,
-73,
87,
-63,
-10,
-13,
-109,
95,
51,
126,
-25,
59,
78,
-32,
-118,
-107,
70,
-64,
-55,
20,
-122,
-123,
-39,
109,
-47,
10,
4... |
The Judicial Tenure Commission has issued a Decision and Recommendation, to which the respondent, Honorable Joseph S. Filip, 12th District Court Judge, consents. It is accompanied by a settlement agreement, in which the respondent waived his rights, stipulated to findings of fact and conclusions of law, and consented t... | [
-80,
-22,
-51,
-35,
40,
97,
26,
-8,
107,
-125,
119,
115,
-25,
-5,
-108,
127,
-30,
125,
-47,
43,
-53,
50,
119,
-63,
118,
-13,
-6,
-47,
49,
111,
-10,
-3,
73,
48,
-126,
-43,
70,
72,
-62,
86,
-126,
7,
-55,
97,
-54,
-64,
52,
55... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 9, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The request for default judgment is DENIED. | [
-104,
-20,
-43,
-84,
-120,
-32,
-77,
-97,
65,
-73,
55,
-45,
-83,
-6,
-108,
127,
12,
79,
117,
-6,
95,
-79,
23,
64,
122,
-45,
-110,
93,
-15,
127,
-28,
58,
14,
-16,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
107,
24,
-114,
7,
-35,
-20,
-47,
73,
40,
... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 12, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the cases of People v. Betts (Docket No. 148981) and People v. Snyder (Docket No. 153696) are pending on appeal before this Court and that the decisions i... | [
-16,
104,
-35,
28,
58,
65,
81,
-65,
97,
-93,
103,
83,
-83,
-46,
84,
127,
-103,
77,
113,
123,
-5,
-75,
39,
-63,
-10,
-5,
-101,
-33,
51,
125,
-26,
-2,
8,
96,
10,
84,
70,
-63,
-55,
28,
-116,
7,
-5,
105,
-47,
64,
48,
55,
88,... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-112,
-52,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-16,
-45,
31,
65,
-93,
127,
-41,
-81,
-14,
-108,
127,
-68,
15,
112,
91,
-37,
-78,
23,
-63,
114,
-45,
-34,
-36,
115,
110,
-12,
56,
78,
96,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
105,
88,
-114,
7,
-39,
-51,
-111,
42,
4... |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 27, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of People v. Dixon-Bey (Docket No. 156746) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in t... | [
-112,
120,
-36,
-116,
42,
-64,
115,
-73,
113,
-125,
37,
83,
-83,
-46,
84,
121,
27,
111,
33,
123,
-37,
55,
23,
-63,
98,
-13,
-37,
94,
57,
71,
-27,
-2,
72,
97,
-118,
-48,
70,
-64,
-23,
28,
-114,
7,
-37,
109,
81,
78,
8,
123,
... |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to substitute Denise Tindle, Personal Representative of the Estate of Roselyn Ford, as the plaintiff-appellant in MSC No. 156134 is GRANTED. On further order of the Chief Justice, the motion of amici curiae National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, Inc., to share ten minutes of ... | [
-47,
124,
92,
-116,
8,
33,
48,
-72,
101,
-45,
103,
83,
-81,
-50,
22,
51,
111,
125,
-47,
107,
87,
-15,
7,
-128,
-15,
-14,
-37,
-49,
-88,
92,
-11,
127,
72,
32,
-118,
92,
-54,
-63,
-51,
20,
-122,
42,
-55,
-30,
-7,
83,
36,
121... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.