Desmond M White v. City of Detroit Election Commission

Michigan Supreme Court

Desmond M White v. City of Detroit Election Commission

DecidedOctober 30, 2013

Docket147875

StatusPublished

This text of Desmond M White v. City of Detroit Election Commission (Desmond M White v. City of Detroit Election Commission) 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

Desmond M White v. City of Detroit Election Commission, (Mich. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

October 30, 2013 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Stephen J. Markman 147875 & (28)(32)(33) Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano, DESMOND M. WHITE and ROBERT DAVIS, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants, v SC: 147875 COA: 318683 Wayne CC: 13-013071-AW CITY OF DETROIT ELECTION COMMISSION, CITY CLERK FOR THE CITY OF DETROIT, WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF CANVASSERS, and ACCUFORM, INC., Defendants-Appellees, and MIKE DUGGAN, Intervening Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED. The motion to strike the intervening defendant’s brief in opposition is DENIED. The application for leave to appeal prior to decision by the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that the questions presented will cause a “delay in final adjudication . . . likely to cause substantial harm” or that “the appeal is from a ruling that a provision of the Michigan Constitution, a Michigan statute, a rule or regulation included in the Michigan Administrative Code, or any other action of the legislative or executive branch of state government is invalid.” MCR 7.302(B)(4). The question of awarding costs is reserved until further order of the Court.

I, Larry S. Royster, 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. October 30, 2013 d1030 Clerk

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

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

October 30, 2013 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Stephen J. Markman 147875 & (28)(32)(33) Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano, DESMOND M. WHITE and ROBERT DAVIS, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants, v SC: 147875 COA: 318683 Wayne CC: 13-013071-AW CITY OF DETROIT ELECTION COMMISSION, CITY CLERK FOR THE CITY OF DETROIT, WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF CANVASSERS, and ACCUFORM, INC., Defendants-Appellees, and MIKE DUGGAN, Intervening Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED. The motion to strike the intervening defendant’s brief in opposition is DENIED. The application for leave to appeal prior to decision by the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that the questions presented will cause a “delay in final adjudication . . . likely to cause substantial harm” or that “the appeal is from a ruling that a provision of the Michigan Constitution, a Michigan statute, a rule or regulation included in the Michigan Administrative Code, or any other action of the legislative or executive branch of state government is invalid.” MCR 7.302(B)(4). The question of awarding costs is reserved until further order of the Court.

I, Larry S. Royster, 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. October 30, 2013 d1030 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Desmond M White v. City of Detroit Election Commission, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desmond-m-white-v-city-of-detroit-election-commiss-mich-2013.