Franklin Clayton v. Dept of Corrections

Michigan Supreme Court

Franklin Clayton v. Dept of Corrections

DecidedNovember 29, 2006

Docket130562

StatusPublished

This text of Franklin Clayton v. Dept of Corrections (Franklin Clayton v. Dept of Corrections) 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

Franklin Clayton v. Dept of Corrections, (Mich. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

130562 Michael F. Cavanagh & (19) Elizabeth A. Weaver (20) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices FRANKLIN CLAYTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v SC: 130562 COA: 267124 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 27, 2006 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. The miscellaneous motion and the motion to appoint counsel are DENIED.

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 29, 2006 _________________________________________ l1120 Clerk

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

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

130562 Michael F. Cavanagh & (19) Elizabeth A. Weaver (20) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices FRANKLIN CLAYTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v SC: 130562 COA: 267124 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 27, 2006 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. The miscellaneous motion and the motion to appoint counsel are DENIED.

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 29, 2006 _________________________________________ l1120 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Franklin Clayton v. Dept of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-clayton-v-dept-of-corrections-mich-2006.