Killmer v. Sabourin

Michigan Supreme Court

Killmer v. Sabourin

873 N.W.2d 314, 499 Mich. 852

Michigan Supreme Court·Decided February 2, 2016·No. No. 151965; Court of Appeals No. 326304·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting the application for leave to appeal, we vacate the order of the Court of Appeals, and we remand this case to that court for reconsideration of the issues raised by the plaintiffs on the original record or, if filed, for consideration of a motion to expand the record. The panel erred in allowing the defendants to expand the record without first having moved to do so. MCR 7.210(A)(1). The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants is denied, [853]*853because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court. We do not retain jurisdiction.

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

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting the application for leave to appeal, we vacate the order of the Court of Appeals, and we remand this case to that court for reconsideration of the issues raised by the plaintiffs on the original record or, if filed, for consideration of a motion to expand the record. The panel erred in allowing the defendants to expand the record without first having moved to do so. MCR 7.210(A)(1). The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants is denied, [853]*853because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Killmer v. Sabourin, 873 N.W.2d 314, 499 Mich. 852 (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

873 N.W.2d 314 (Killmer v. Sabourin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related