Paul H Scott v. Director of Elections

Michigan Supreme Court

Paul H Scott v. Director of Elections

DecidedSeptember 9, 2011

Docket143629

StatusPublished

This text of Paul H Scott v. Director of Elections (Paul H Scott v. Director of Elections) 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

Paul H Scott v. Director of Elections, (Mich. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

September 9, 2011 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Marilyn Kelly 143629 & (17)(18)(21)(22) Stephen J. Markman Diane M. Hathaway Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra, Justices REPRESENTATIVE PAUL H. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v SC: 143629 COA: 305479 DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS, Genesee CC: 11-096468-AA Defendant-Appellee. ____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file a brief amicus curiae and the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2011 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 motion for stay is 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. September 9, 2011 _________________________________________ h0906 Clerk

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

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

September 9, 2011 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Marilyn Kelly 143629 & (17)(18)(21)(22) Stephen J. Markman Diane M. Hathaway Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra, Justices REPRESENTATIVE PAUL H. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v SC: 143629 COA: 305479 DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS, Genesee CC: 11-096468-AA Defendant-Appellee. ____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file a brief amicus curiae and the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2011 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 motion for stay is 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. September 9, 2011 _________________________________________ h0906 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Paul H Scott v. Director of Elections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-h-scott-v-director-of-elections-mich-2011.