Crawford Cnty v. Otsego Cnty

CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 1, 2006
Docket128880
StatusPublished

This text of Crawford Cnty v. Otsego Cnty (Crawford Cnty v. Otsego Cnty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Crawford Cnty v. Otsego Cnty, (Mich. 2006).

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

November 1, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128880 & (85)(86)(88)(91) Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, COUNTY OF CRAWFORD and COUNTY OF Justices KALKASKA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 128880

COA: 254180

Otsego CC: 02-010014-CZ

COUNTY OF OTSEGO,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

By order of December 28, 2005, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 46th Circuit Trial Court v Crawford County (Docket No. 128878). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on July 28, 2006, 476 Mich 131 (2006), the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals, which shall hold this case in abeyance pending its decision on remand in 46th Circuit Trial Court v Crawford County (Court of Appeals Docket Nos. 246823, 248593 and 251390). After 46th Circuit Trial Court v Crawford County is decided on remand, the Court of Appeals shall reconsider whether Otsego County is entitled to reimbursement for any attorney fees paid on behalf of the 46th Circuit Trial Court. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

The motions for immediate consideration and for peremptory reversal are DENIED. The remaining motions for miscellaneous relief are GRANTED. A public question being involved, and in light of the relationships between the parties, no costs are awarded.

KELLY, J., would deny leave to appeal.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. November 1, 2006 _________________________________________ d1025 Clerk

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

Related

46th Circuit Trial Court v. Crawford County
719 N.W.2d 553 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Crawford Cnty v. Otsego Cnty, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-cnty-v-otsego-cnty-mich-2006.