Gary Hixon v. Attorney Grievance Commission
This text of Gary Hixon v. Attorney Grievance Commission (Gary Hixon v. Attorney Grievance 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.
Opinion
Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
January 2, 2020 Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice
160170 David F. Viviano, Chief Justice Pro Tem
Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra GARY HIXON, Richard H. Bernstein Plaintiff, Elizabeth T. Clement Megan K. Cavanagh, Justices v SC: 160170 AGC: 18-2366 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant. _________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief.
CAVANAGH, J., did not participate due to her prior service as a member of the Attorney Grievance Commission.
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. January 2, 2020 a1216 Clerk
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gary Hixon v. Attorney Grievance Commission, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-hixon-v-attorney-grievance-commission-mich-2020.