City of Portage v. Timmerman

Michigan Court of Appeals

City of Portage v. Timmerman

161 N.W.2d 442, 11 Mich. App. 498, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1312

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 28, 1968

DocketDocket Nos. 3,842, 3,843

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 N.W.2d 442 (City of Portage v. Timmerman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Portage v. Timmerman, 161 N.W.2d 442, 11 Mich. App. 498, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1312 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendants were convicted for violating an ordinance of the city of Portage and were sentenced therefor. They appealed to the circuit court for the county of Kalamazoo where their motions to dismiss were granted for a reason not pertinent to present decision. The city appealed to this Court as of right and defendants moved to dismiss the appeal because the city had no appeal of right. By orders dated October 27, 1967, defendants’ motions to dismiss were continued until hearing on the merits. Such hearing has been had.

Although Const 1963, art 1, § 20, removes the accused from the restrictions of CL 1948, § 770.3 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1100) and grants a right of appeal, appeals by the city still require leave and are restricted by the provisions of CL 1948, § 770.12 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1109). The city has no right of appeal and defendants’ motions to dismiss these appeals are granted.

This disposition obviates discussion of the other questions raised.

Burns, P. J., and Quinn and Ziem, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Defendants were convicted for violating an ordinance of the city of Portage and were sentenced therefor. They appealed to the circuit court for the county of Kalamazoo where their motions to dismiss were granted for a reason not pertinent to present decision. The city appealed to this Court as of right and defendants moved to dismiss the appeal because the city had no appeal of right. By orders dated October 27, 1967, defendants’ motions to dismiss were continued until hearing on the merits. Such hearing has been had.

Although Const 1963, art 1, § 20, removes the accused from the restrictions of CL 1948, § 770.3 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1100) and grants a right of appeal, appeals by the city still require leave and are restricted by the provisions of CL 1948, § 770.12 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1109). The city has no right of appeal and defendants’ motions to dismiss these appeals are granted.

This disposition obviates discussion of the other questions raised.

Burns, P. J., and Quinn and Ziem, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 N.W.2d 442, 11 Mich. App. 498, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-portage-v-timmerman-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack