Stacy Oakes v. Court of Appeals
This text of Stacy Oakes v. Court of Appeals (Stacy Oakes v. Court of Appeals) 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
June 19, 2020 Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice
David F. Viviano, Chief Justice Pro Tem 161393 & (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(12)(13) Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein STACY OAKES, Elizabeth T. Clement Plaintiff, Megan K. Cavanagh, Justices
v SC: 161393 COURT OF APPEALS, Defendant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED. The complaint for superintending control is considered, and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief. The motions to stay the Court of Appeals proceedings, to correct clerical errors, for relief from order, and for temporary restraining order are DENIED.
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. June 19, 2020 s0616 Clerk
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Stacy Oakes v. Court of Appeals, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stacy-oakes-v-court-of-appeals-mich-2020.