Lee v. City of Detroit

766 N.W.2d 817, 483 Mich. 1091
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lee v. City of Detroit. Read the opinion of the Court — 485 Mich. 1015
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided June 23, 2009·No. 138091·Published

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

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

766 N.W.2d 817 (Lee v. City of Detroit) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.