Lee v. City of Detroit

Michigan Supreme Court

Lee v. City of Detroit

766 N.W.2d 817, 483 Mich. 1091

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 23, 2009

Docket138091

StatusPublished

This text of 766 N.W.2d 817 (Lee v. City of Detroit) 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

Lee v. City of Detroit, 766 N.W.2d 817, 483 Mich. 1091 (Mich. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Granting Oral Argument in Case Pending on Application for Leave to Appeal June 23, 2009:

We direct the clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory-action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). The parties shall submit supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether, with respect to the plaintiffs claim that the police department violated the Whistle-blowers’ Protection Act, MCL 15.361 et seq., the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding a causal connection between his November 2, 2004, internal complaint and his transfer from the Gang Enforcement Section to the Records and Identification Section of the police department. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers. Court of Appeals No. 274530.

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

Order Granting Oral Argument in Case Pending on Application for Leave to Appeal June 23, 2009:

We direct the clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory-action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). The parties shall submit supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether, with respect to the plaintiffs claim that the police department violated the Whistle-blowers’ Protection Act, MCL 15.361 et seq., the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding a causal connection between his November 2, 2004, internal complaint and his transfer from the Gang Enforcement Section to the Records and Identification Section of the police department. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers. Court of Appeals No. 274530.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

766 N.W.2d 817, 483 Mich. 1091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-city-of-detroit-mich-2009.