The case involved plaintiff Michael C. Lee appealing a judgment against him in a civil action against the City of Detroit that originated in Wayne Circuit Court. After hearing oral argument, the Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' December 2008 decision. The Court concluded that it was not persuaded the questions presented required its review. Two justices indicated they would have granted leave to appeal.
This case involved a dispute between the Lenawee County Board of Road Commissioners and insurance companies State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company and Citizens Insurance Company of America, along with construction-related defendants. The plaintiff appealed lower court rulings to the Michigan Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals issued orders in the matter. Following oral argument, the Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal on the grounds that the questions presented did not merit further review by the Court. Three justices dissented from the denial and would have granted leave.
The case involved plaintiff Charlotte Chalko appealing a Court of Appeals judgment against her in a lawsuit against defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company over no-fault automobile insurance benefits. The Michigan Supreme Court considered the application for leave to appeal the July 9, 2009 Court of Appeals decision and denied it. The court explained that it was not persuaded the questions presented warranted review by the Court. Chief Justice Kelly and Justice Hathaway would have granted leave to appeal.
This case involved plaintiffs Ronnie L. Myers and Mary Myers appealing a Court of Appeals judgment in their civil lawsuit against Muffler Man Supply Company and multiple other equipment and construction companies in Genesee Circuit Court. The Michigan Supreme Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal and denied it, concluding that the question presented did not merit review by the Court. Three justices dissented from the denial and would have granted leave to appeal.
This case involved defendant Anthony Keith Williams, who sought leave to appeal a Court of Appeals judgment affirming his Oakland Circuit Court conviction or sentence in a felony matter. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal, stating it was not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed. Chief Justice Kelly indicated she would have granted leave to appeal, but the order otherwise reflected the Court's decision not to hear the case.
The case concerns a lawsuit filed by the Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust against the Bloomfield Hills Country Club, several individual property owners, and the City of Bloomfield Hills in Oakland County Circuit Court over a civil dispute. After the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a decision and the Michigan Supreme Court entered an order on September 23, 2009, the plaintiff sought reconsideration. The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration, concluding that its prior order did not appear to have been entered erroneously. Chief Justice Kelly and Justice Cavanagh indicated they would have granted reconsideration.
The case is a criminal prosecution in which defendant Thomas Washington was convicted in Wayne Circuit Court and appealed his conviction. After the Court of Appeals affirmed, Washington sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Court denied the application, explaining that it was not persuaded the issues merited further review. Two justices would have held the case pending a related U.S. Supreme Court decision on jury selection.
This case involves defendant Marc Alan Delgado, who was convicted following a felony proceeding in Gratiot County Circuit Court. After the Court of Appeals issued an order in the matter, Delgado sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the application, concluding that it was not persuaded the question presented warranted review by the Court. Chief Justice Kelly indicated she would have granted leave to appeal.
The case State Treasurer v. Sprague was a civil lawsuit in which the State Treasurer sued Timothy Sprague and other defendants, including a credit union, and the Court of Appeals had issued a judgment against Sprague. Sprague sought leave to appeal that judgment to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal, concluding that the questions presented did not merit further review by the Court. Three justices dissented from the denial and would have granted leave.
This case concerns a wrongful death action brought by the personal representative of John Allen Hawkins's estate against Alan Almy and the Michigan State University Board of Trustees, stemming from an incident that resulted in Hawkins's death. The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed an application for leave to appeal a May 2009 Court of Appeals judgment that had affirmed the lower courts' rulings in favor of the defendants. The Court denied the application for leave to appeal, stating that it was not persuaded the questions presented warranted further review by this Court. Three justices dissented from the denial and would have granted leave.
The case involves defendant Ralph Edward Parish, who was convicted in Crawford Circuit Court on felony charges and sought further review after an adverse decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals. Parish filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the application, concluding that the questions presented did not warrant review by the Court. Chief Justice Kelly and Justice Cavanagh indicated they would have granted leave to appeal.
The case Kiefer v. Markley was a medical malpractice action brought by plaintiffs Marilyn J. Kiefer and George Kiefer against defendant Dr. John M. Markley and his plastic surgery center. The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed an application for leave to appeal a Court of Appeals judgment that had upheld dismissal of the complaint. The Court denied leave to appeal, explaining that it was not persuaded the issues merited further review. Three justices dissented and would have reversed the Court of Appeals for the reasons in its dissenting opinion, remanding the case for reinstatement of the complaint.
The case Scott v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. involved a dispute between intervening plaintiff-appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and defendants-appellees Northwest Airlines, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company concerning a workers' compensation claim by plaintiff Lois Scott. The Michigan Court of Appeals had previously issued an order in the matter. State Farm sought leave to appeal that order to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal because it was not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by the Court.
The case of Teresa Theodore against Raymond Horenstein originated in the Oakland County Circuit Court as a civil action numbered 2007-083096-NI. The plaintiff appealed a decision from the Court of Appeals, seeking review by the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal, stating that it was not persuaded that the questions presented warranted review by the Court. Chief Justice Kelly and Justice Hathaway indicated they would have granted leave to appeal.
This case is a criminal matter originating in Wayne County Circuit Court involving defendant Kenneth Maurice Robinson. The defendant sought leave to appeal a May 28, 2009 judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal, explaining that it was not persuaded the question presented warranted review by the Court. Chief Justice Kelly indicated she would have granted leave to appeal.
In Powell v. Save-A-Lot, plaintiff Shirley Powell sought to appeal a Court of Appeals judgment against defendant Save-A-Lot in a personal injury matter. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal on the grounds that the question presented did not warrant review by the Court. Chief Justice Kelly indicated she would grant leave, while Justice Markman dissented and called for review to resolve inconsistent approaches in Michigan case law regarding so-called black ice cases.
Curtis Green filed a workers' compensation claim against his employer, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, which proceeded through the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission and then to the Michigan Court of Appeals. After the Court of Appeals issued an order on July 1, 2009, Green sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the application, concluding it was not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed. Chief Justice Kelly dissented from the denial and would have granted leave.
The case involved defendant Vernon Maurice Adams seeking leave to appeal a November 21, 2008 order of the Michigan Court of Appeals in his criminal proceeding from the Oakland County Circuit Court. The Michigan Supreme Court considered the application for leave to appeal but denied it. The Court stated that it was not persuaded the questions presented should be reviewed. Chief Justice Kelly noted she would grant leave based on her opinion in the related case People v. Idziak.
This case involves defendant Kip C. Schmidt, who was convicted in Macomb Circuit Court on felony charges and sought further review after an adverse Court of Appeals decision. The Michigan Supreme Court had previously denied leave to appeal or related relief in a June 12, 2009 order. Defendant then moved for reconsideration of that order. The Court denied the motion because the prior order did not appear to have been entered erroneously. Chief Justice Kelly indicated she would have granted reconsideration and leave to appeal.
The case involves a lawsuit filed by Donna Noe against the City of Detroit in Wayne Circuit Court. The Michigan Supreme Court previously entered an order in the matter on March 18, 2009, and Noe filed a motion seeking reconsideration of that order. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration on the grounds that the prior order did not appear to have been entered erroneously. Chief Justice Kelly dissented, stating she would grant reconsideration and leave to appeal.
