text
stringlengths 12
234k
| embeddings
sequencelengths 128
128
|
|---|---|
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
WILDER , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel. | [
-112,
-8,
-4,
-68,
-86,
97,
40,
28,
65,
-61,
119,
81,
-81,
-14,
16,
127,
-85,
111,
81,
123,
-33,
-78,
23,
-64,
123,
-46,
-37,
94,
-77,
111,
-12,
56,
12,
104,
-118,
86,
70,
-126,
-87,
80,
-114,
7,
-103,
109,
-103,
1,
56,
75,
30,
15,
49,
-97,
115,
46,
57,
72,
-55,
104,
-37,
49,
-63,
-39,
-117,
15,
126,
20,
-126,
20,
46,
3,
112,
126,
48,
49,
1,
-24,
122,
-74,
-109,
116,
72,
-69,
-87,
35,
67,
1,
76,
-19,
61,
-87,
63,
88,
-99,
-91,
-40,
56,
107,
65,
-42,
-65,
117,
22,
46,
124,
78,
-115,
92,
108,
66,
-17,
-112,
-77,
-50,
120,
-92,
-55,
-30,
-126,
16,
113,
-35,
-16,
92,
66,
51,
95,
-18,
-112
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The motion for reconsideration of this Court's February 20, 2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. | [
-109,
120,
-12,
-52,
8,
96,
33,
-65,
67,
-125,
103,
51,
-25,
-14,
-108,
123,
-49,
71,
-15,
-6,
-3,
-77,
102,
121,
118,
-13,
-62,
95,
-15,
-20,
-28,
54,
76,
114,
-38,
-43,
70,
-64,
-25,
-42,
-114,
7,
-104,
-31,
-47,
76,
48,
35,
90,
15,
113,
-50,
-31,
44,
24,
-61,
-23,
40,
-33,
125,
-63,
-39,
-73,
7,
127,
20,
-95,
52,
-100,
-60,
-8,
126,
-100,
49,
24,
-22,
117,
-10,
-105,
116,
97,
-5,
12,
97,
35,
-63,
72,
-1,
-103,
-86,
53,
10,
47,
-90,
-101,
16,
-55,
39,
-106,
-69,
52,
22,
46,
124,
-113,
-123,
29,
-20,
2,
-82,
-76,
-77,
94,
126,
-88,
-31,
-5,
-112,
16,
32,
-51,
112,
92,
70,
25,
-5,
-26,
-74
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to file a pro per supplement to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The pro per supplement submitted on June 8, 2018, is accepted for filing. | [
116,
80,
-36,
13,
27,
96,
88,
62,
101,
-45,
103,
81,
-1,
-38,
4,
127,
-17,
111,
70,
123,
-39,
-77,
39,
-40,
-78,
-13,
-109,
87,
120,
110,
-27,
120,
77,
-15,
-118,
-124,
70,
-56,
-55,
28,
-114,
11,
-119,
-32,
-47,
101,
-88,
123,
58,
15,
49,
-42,
-13,
108,
24,
69,
-120,
108,
-39,
4,
-63,
-104,
-101,
-115,
-17,
60,
-127,
5,
-69,
-58,
112,
47,
8,
57,
0,
-23,
50,
-74,
-110,
112,
107,
-5,
-128,
99,
98,
1,
-48,
-25,
28,
-22,
28,
90,
-97,
102,
-77,
-111,
75,
32,
-106,
-67,
44,
20,
39,
126,
-56,
-115,
29,
45,
3,
-42,
-106,
-95,
-98,
104,
12,
-126,
-21,
6,
50,
96,
-64,
-22,
88,
-50,
51,
-7,
-10,
-110
] |
On order of the Court, the request by the Judicial Tenure Commission for the appointment of a Master is considered, and the Honorable William J. Giovan is hereby appointed Master to hear Formal Complaint No. 99. | [
-92,
-20,
-116,
-56,
10,
97,
22,
-72,
67,
83,
119,
-41,
-19,
-109,
16,
69,
-1,
109,
-110,
106,
-19,
-12,
118,
-64,
82,
-47,
-13,
-33,
50,
110,
-3,
-71,
65,
-72,
-78,
-97,
-58,
-64,
-51,
86,
-58,
35,
-55,
-91,
-45,
73,
32,
125,
23,
77,
52,
71,
99,
44,
49,
51,
-19,
106,
-39,
109,
-56,
-120,
-101,
-108,
127,
22,
-109,
36,
-100,
11,
88,
46,
-128,
25,
-124,
-6,
19,
-74,
-125,
112,
5,
-71,
8,
114,
2,
18,
-49,
-75,
56,
-31,
60,
40,
-100,
-90,
-101,
89,
-21,
32,
-106,
-84,
117,
80,
46,
54,
103,
-124,
55,
38,
79,
-114,
-90,
-89,
94,
-12,
-50,
26,
-21,
-41,
16,
32,
-124,
118,
116,
64,
23,
89,
-73,
32
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time for filing its supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before September 27, 2019. | [
116,
114,
-68,
-52,
42,
32,
49,
-68,
96,
-21,
38,
83,
-73,
-54,
20,
119,
-17,
105,
71,
-13,
-1,
-77,
38,
88,
116,
-13,
-45,
-41,
116,
126,
-10,
-97,
12,
48,
-118,
21,
70,
-56,
-127,
28,
-50,
-119,
-103,
96,
81,
104,
32,
121,
88,
11,
49,
86,
-29,
107,
27,
77,
-88,
104,
-35,
53,
-61,
-64,
-109,
-123,
-1,
22,
-127,
-91,
62,
-58,
72,
62,
8,
61,
8,
-55,
50,
-106,
-110,
116,
107,
-5,
-128,
66,
98,
-128,
89,
-17,
-100,
-86,
84,
90,
-113,
-26,
-77,
41,
-53,
-88,
-74,
61,
60,
16,
47,
126,
110,
-124,
50,
44,
10,
-50,
-126,
-77,
-97,
74,
12,
-117,
-13,
-122,
16,
96,
-55,
-20,
24,
94,
25,
123,
-62,
-119
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 18, 2019 judgment 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. | [
-110,
76,
-35,
-84,
-120,
112,
-45,
21,
65,
-89,
103,
-45,
-81,
-46,
20,
127,
-19,
15,
102,
91,
-49,
-73,
55,
65,
114,
-13,
-42,
95,
115,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
96,
-102,
-43,
70,
-55,
73,
-100,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-111,
72,
40,
3,
30,
14,
17,
-76,
-29,
108,
-103,
99,
-56,
104,
-39,
41,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
16,
-116,
-125,
-16,
62,
-68,
56,
13,
-4,
112,
-90,
-109,
52,
105,
-69,
-108,
81,
99,
-127,
76,
-21,
56,
-87,
21,
122,
-81,
38,
-104,
57,
-53,
97,
-106,
-67,
116,
118,
47,
124,
106,
13,
93,
-4,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-73,
27,
60,
-96,
-23,
-21,
-98,
18,
97,
-99,
-8,
28,
78,
51,
121,
-10,
-80
] |
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff filed this suit seeking injunctive relief to abate a public nuisance. Plaintiff claimed that defendants' piggery violated the zoning ordinance applicable to defendants' property (the land was zoned as commercial and not agricultural). Defendants filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (claim barred by statute of limitations). The trial court denied defendants' motion, holding that this was an action in rem and that therefore the statute of limitations did not apply. Defendants appeal by leave granted. We reverse the decision of the trial court and remand the case in order to allow defendants to amend their responsive pleading to include the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.
I. FACTS
On May 3, 2016, plaintiff filed this action against defendants, alleging that defendants were raising approximately 20 domestic hogs on their property in violation of plaintiff's zoning laws and that defendants were creating a nuisance due to the stench and flies drawn by deer and hog waste. Defendant Harvey Haney testified that privately owned deer or elk were no longer on the subject property, but he admitted that he began raising hogs on the property in 2006. Plaintiff offered no evidence that defendants continued to bring new hogs onto the property after 2006 or that defendants had actually begun to raise hogs on the property after 2006. Plaintiff sought an injunction precluding defendants from continuing to raise hogs (or other animals that would violate plaintiff's zoning ordinance) on the subject property.
Defendants filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff's claim was time-barred by the six-year general period of limitations set forth in MCL 600.5813. The trial court denied defendants' motion, reasoning that the statute of limitations did not bar plaintiff's complaint because the case constituted an action in rem.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), the applicability of a statute of limitations to a cause of action, and questions of statutory interpretation. Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co. , 479 Mich. 378, 386, 738 N.W.2d 664 (2007).
III. ANALYSIS
A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) may be raised on the ground that a claim is barred by the statute of limitations. In support of a motion under Subrule (C)(7), a party may provide affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence. MCR 2.116(G)(5). Unlike a motion brought under Subrule (C)(10), "a movant under MCR 2.116(C)(7) is not required to file supportive material, and the opposing party need not reply with supportive material." Maiden v. Rozwood , 461 Mich. 109, 119, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). However, the substance of this material, if provided, must be admissible in evidence. Id . When reviewing motions under Subrule (C)(7),
this Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construe them in favor of the plaintiff, unless other evidence contradicts them. If any affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documentary evidence are submitted, the court must consider them to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. If no facts are in dispute, and if reasonable minds could not differ regarding the legal effect of those facts, the question whether the claim is barred is an issue of law for the court. However, if a question of fact exists to the extent that factual development could provide a basis for recovery, dismissal is inappropriate. [ Dextrom v. Wexford Co. , 287 Mich.App. 406, 428-429, 789 N.W.2d 211 (2010).]
"[O]nly factual allegations, not legal conclusions, are to be taken as true under MCR 2.116(C)(7) ...." Davis v. City of Detroit , 269 Mich.App. 376, 379 n. 1, 711 N.W.2d 462 (2006).
A. WAIVER OF THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS DEFENSE
Plaintiff argues that defendants cannot prevail on any statute-of-limitations defense because defendants failed to assert a limitations-period defense in their first responsive pleading. However, this case presents the unusual situation in which the trial court made an express holding with respect to the applicability of the asserted statute-of-limitations defense notwithstanding defendants' untimely invocation. The parties briefed and presented their arguments concerning the applicability of the statute of limitations to plaintiff's claim, though plaintiff did not argue until after this appeal was filed that defendants failed to properly assert the statute-of-limitations defense in their responsive pleading. Under these circumstances, we hold that the trial court tried the merits of defendants' statute-of-limitations defense with plaintiff's implied consent. The issue may therefore be treated as if it had been raised in defendants' pleadings, and it is appropriate to remand the case to allow defendants to move to amend their responsive pleading accordingly.
" '[T]he running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense.' " Dell v. Citizens Ins. Co. of America , 312 Mich.App. 734, 752, 880 N.W.2d 280 (2015) (citation omitted). "Affirmative defenses must be stated in a party's responsive pleading, either as originally filed or as amended in accordance with MCR 2.118." MCR 2.111(F)(3). Pursuant to MCR 2.118(C)(1),
[w]hen issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they are treated as if they had been raised by the pleadings. In that case, amendment of the pleadings to conform to the evidence and to raise those issues may be made on motion of a party at any time, even after judgment.
In order for an issue to be "tried" for purposes of MCR 2.118(C)(1), it must be analyzed on its merits by the trial court. Amburgey v. Sauder , 238 Mich.App. 228, 247-248, 605 N.W.2d 84 (1999). The trial court in this case clearly addressed the merits of defendants' untimely assertion of their statute-of-limitations defense, and the parties were given ample opportunity to brief and argue the issue. The issue of the statute of limitations' applicability was therefore "tried." Moreover, a party may give implied consent to the adjudication of an issue by failing to object to the issue before the trial court. Zdrojewski v. Murphy , 254 Mich.App. 50, 61, 657 N.W.2d 721 (2002) ; Grebner v. Clinton Charter Twp. , 216 Mich.App. 736, 744, 550 N.W.2d 265 (1996). In this case, plaintiff did not object until after this appeal was filed to defendants' failure to allege a statute-of-limitations defense in their responsive pleading. Plaintiff briefed arguments against the applicability of the statute of limitations and presented its case to the trial court. Ergo, plaintiff impliedly consented to the adjudication of the issue. See Zdrojewski , 254 Mich.App. at 61, 657 N.W.2d 721.
MCR 2.118(C)(1) is "liberal and permissive .... The only requirement is that the party seeking amendment move to have the court amend the pleadings ...." Zdrojewski , 254 Mich.App. at 61, 657 N.W.2d 721. In this case, defendants have not moved to amend their affirmative defenses. Typically, this would constitute a binding waiver of the defense. Geisland v. Csutoras , 78 Mich.App. 624, 630, 261 N.W.2d 537 (1977). Importantly, however, the text of MCR 2.118(C)(1) expressly allows for motions to amend the pleadings to be made by a party "at any time, even after judgment ." (Emphasis added.) This Court, in Geisland , 78 Mich.App. at 630, 261 N.W.2d 537, held that when one defendant properly asserted a statute-of-limitations defense, the plaintiff was not misled or prejudiced when the other defendants asserted the same defense, and it was appropriate to allow the other defendants to seek leave to amend their answers to include the affirmative defense on remand. This Court in Jesperson v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n , 306 Mich.App. 632, 647, 858 N.W.2d 105 (2014), rev'd on other grounds 499 Mich. 29, 878 N.W.2d 799 (2016), held that when the trial court could have granted a defendant leave to amend its pleading to include a statute-of-limitations defense not previously asserted and the defense would have barred the plaintiff's claim, the Court's interest in judicial efficiency enabled the Court to forgo remand and simply determine that the statute-of-limitations defense was not waived. Id . Consequently, it does not matter that defendants have so far failed to move to amend their affirmative defenses, as long as a proper amendment ultimately occurs. See id .
Notably, if defendants had moved to amend their responsive pleading, the trial court would have been within its discretion to grant such a motion. The Jesperson Court stated that "leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted to a nonprevailing party at summary disposition, unless amendment would be futile or otherwise unjustified." Id . See also MCR 2.118(A)(2). Aside from futility, other reasons to disallow leave to amend include "undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the movant's part, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, [and] undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment ...." Amburgey , 238 Mich.App. at 247, 605 N.W.2d 84. Critically,
[d]elay, alone, does not warrant denial of a motion to amend. However, a motion may be properly denied if the delay was in bad faith or if the opposing party suffered actual prejudice as a result. Prejudice to a defendant that will justify denial of leave to amend is the prejudice that arises when the amendment would prevent the defendant from having a fair trial; the prejudice must stem from the fact that the new allegations are offered late and not from the fact that they might cause the defendant to lose on the merits. [ Id . (citations omitted).]
Defendants' assertion of the statute-of-limitations defense would not be futile. Further, because plaintiff was given the opportunity to brief and argue before the trial court its position against defendants' assertion of the statute of limitations, it can hardly be said that plaintiff would suffer prejudice were we to allow defendants to amend their responsive pleading. "The mere fact that an amendment might cause a party to lose on the merits is not sufficient to establish prejudice." Ostroth v. Warren Regency, G.P., LLC , 263 Mich.App. 1, 5, 687 N.W.2d 309 (2004).
This Court's decision in Ostroth is perhaps most instructive. In that case, this Court considered whether a trial court erred by allowing a defendant to amend its affirmative defenses to include the statute of limitations. Id . The defendant failed to assert the defense in its responsive pleading and did not move to amend its affirmative defenses to include the defense until after it was raised in the defendant's motion for summary disposition. Id . Because the defendant's untimely action was not the result of bad faith or undue delay and did not prejudice the plaintiff's ability to respond to the issue, this Court affirmed the trial court's grant of the defendant's motion to amend. Id . Accordingly, because there is no indication that defendants in this case asserted the statute-of-limitations defense in bad faith, the delay in filing a motion to amend defendants' affirmative defenses would not be sufficient to warrant denying such an amendment. See id . ; Amburgey , 238 Mich.App. at 247, 605 N.W.2d 84.
B. THE APPLICABLE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS
Having determined that defendants' attempted assertion of the statute-of-limitations defense is proper, it becomes necessary to determine the period of limitations applicable to plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff's claim is for the abatement of a public nuisance. In Dep't of Environmental Quality v. Waterous Co. , 279 Mich.App. 346, 383, 760 N.W.2d 856 (2008), this Court held that a claim for the abatement of a public nuisance filed by a governmental entity seeking injunctive relief was subject to the six-year general period of limitations under MCL 600.5813. Ergo, the applicable period of limitations in this case is six years. Under MCL 600.5827, "the period of limitations runs from the time the claim accrues." Because there is no statutory provision holding otherwise, this claim "accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results." Id . Plaintiff's suit is for the abatement of a public nuisance that stemmed from the piggery kept on the subject property in violation of a local ordinance. Thus, the wrong alleged for purposes of accrual occurred when defendants first began to keep hogs on the subject property, regardless of when the wrong began to result in recoverable damage. Defendants presented undisputed evidence that they had kept hogs on the property since 2006. Plaintiff filed this suit in 2016, and therefore plaintiff's case was time-barred. See MCL 600.5813.
Importantly, the accrual of plaintiff's claim is also not subject to tolling simply because plaintiff may have been unaware that defendants were keeping pigs on the subject property in violation of plaintiff's ordinance. The Michigan Supreme Court, in Trentadue , 479 Mich. at 391-392, 738 N.W.2d 664, held that the common-law discovery rule was not available as a means of tolling the accrual period prescribed by MCL 600.5827. What is relevant, then, is not when plaintiff learned of defendants' violation, but when the violation first took place. 738 N.W.2d 664.
Plaintiff additionally argues that each day that defendants have continued to keep pigs on the property constitutes a separate violation for which the accrual period begins anew. The Fraser Code of Ordinances, § 1-10(a), codifies this assertion by stating that "[e]ach act of violation [of the code] and every day upon which any such violation shall occur shall constitute a separate offense." However, this Court has "completely and retroactively abrogated" the continuing-wrongs doctrine in Michigan, including in nuisance cases. Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club , 283 Mich.App. 264, 288, 769 N.W.2d 234 (2009) (holding that the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Garg v. Macomb Co. Community Mental Health Servs. , 472 Mich. 263; 696 N.W.2d 646 (2005), amended 473 Mich. 1205, 699 N.W.2d 697 (2005), and its progeny rendered the common-law continuing-wrongs doctrine inapplicable in all cases within the state). Further, neither party presented evidence suggesting that defendants were adding new swine to the subject property. Therefore, no new wrongs established a newly accrued cause of action that could salvage plaintiff's argument. Accordingly, plaintiff's contention in this regard is meritless.
Plaintiff next argues that its claim requesting the abatement of a public nuisance is an action in rem and, therefore, the six-year period of limitations is not applicable. This Court, in Detroit v. 19675 Hasse , 258 Mich.App. 438, 448, 671 N.W.2d 150 (2003), outlined the distinction between actions in personam and actions in rem:
[A]ctions in personam differ from actions in rem in that actions or proceedings in personam are directed against a specific person, and seek the recovery of a personal judgment, while actions or proceedings in rem are directed against the thing or property itself, the object of which is to subject it directly to the power of the state, to establish the status or condition thereof, or determine its disposition, and procure a judgment which shall be binding and conclusive against the world. The distinguishing characteristics of an action in rem is [sic] its local rather than transitory nature, and its power to adjudicate the rights of all persons in the thing. [Quotation marks and citation omitted; alterations in original.]
No Michigan court has ever held that a claim seeking the abatement of a public nuisance constitutes an action in rem. This is not an action against the subject property itself to determine its fate. Rather, it is an action seeking injunctive relief against specific, natural persons to force those persons-and only those persons-to come into compliance with a local zoning ordinance. Ergo, plaintiff's claim is an action in personam subject to the statute of limitations. See id .
Plaintiff next argues that if statutes of limitations apply to actions for the abatement of a public nuisance arising from the violation of a local zoning ordinance, this Court would have stated as much in Jerome Twp. v. Melchi , 184 Mich.App. 228, 457 N.W.2d 52 (1990). The fact that a court does not discuss a potentially relevant argument in a written opinion does not bear on the merit of the argument. As previously discussed, that a claim is barred by the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be raised in a defendant's responsive pleading. MCR 2.111(F)(3)(a). It is entirely possible that the statute-of-limitations was simply not raised before the trial court in Jerome Twp. , or that the issue was not pursued on appeal. In either situation, the statute-of-limitations defense-though it may have been meritorious or, at least, applicable-would not have been analyzed by this Court. Plaintiff cannot prevail based on the fact that an argument was not raised in another case, especially when it is unclear whether such an argument had any bearing on its outcome.
Defendants also contend that the trial court improperly relied on 19675 Hasse , 258 Mich.App. 438, 671 N.W.2d 150, to apply the doctrine of quod nullum tempus occurrit regi against the six-year period of limitations. As an initial note, the trial court did not appear to rely on this doctrine in any meaningful way when outlining its reasons for ruling against defendants. Regardless, 19675 Hasse is the only published decision of any Michigan court to discuss this doctrine. It merely stands for the notion that the sovereign is exempt from the operation of statutes of limitations absent express statutory authority stating otherwise. Id . at 445-446, 671 N.W.2d 150. As discussed earlier, the Legislature has enacted MCL 600.5813, which applies to claims by government plaintiffs seeking injunctive abatement of a public nuisance. See Dep't of Environmental Quality , 279 Mich.App. at 383, 760 N.W.2d 856. Accordingly, the government plaintiff in this case is no longer exempt from the statute of limitations under quod nullum tempus occurrit regi. See 19675 Hasse , 258 Mich.App. at 445-446, 671 N.W.2d 150.
C. EFFECT ON THE MICHIGAN ZONING ENABLING ACT
Amicus curiae Michigan Townships Association argues that if defendants are allowed to continue to keep and raise hogs on the subject property because the applicable statute of limitations has barred plaintiff's complaint, it would effectively render null the government's power to regulate nonconforming uses of zoned land, MCL 125.3208, and its authority to abate violations of zoning ordinances as nuisances, MCL 125.3407. This logic is flawed. The preceding authorities do not indicate that defendants may engage in further willful violations of plaintiff's zoning ordinances with impunity. They merely stand for the notion that if plaintiff is to file a cause of action against these-or any-defendants, it must do so within the prescribed period of limitations. While it may appear that plaintiff has a good claim against defendants for violating a local ordinance, the legislation of statutes of limitations represents "a public policy about the privilege to litigate." See Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson , 325 U.S. 304, 314, 65 S.Ct. 1137, 89 L.Ed. 1628 (1945). These statutes exist as a matter of necessity, pragmatism, and convenience. Id . "They are by definition arbitrary, and their operation does not discriminate between the just and the unjust claim, or the voidable and unavoidable delay." Id . Additionally, contrary to amicus curiae's contention, there is no provision in MCL 125.3208 that time-bars claims against any defendant. Any implication that the six-year period of limitations under MCL 600.5813 conflicts with a limitations period prescribed by MCL 125.3208 is therefore meritless.
We reverse the trial court's denial of defendants' motion for summary disposition and remand the case to allow defendants to move to amend their responsive pleading to include the statute of limitations in their affirmative defenses in accordance with MCR 2.118(C)(1). We do not retain jurisdiction.
Swartzle, P.J., and Sawyer and Ronayne Krause, JJ., concurred.
Fraser Twp. v. Haney , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, Docket No. 337842 (September 18, 2017).
Defendant Harvey Haney was previously sued by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 2015 under the Privately Owned Cervidae Producers Marketing Act (POC Act), MCL 287.951 et seq ., when it was discovered that he improperly registered his private cervidae (deer) facility-which was apparently located at the same address as the hog-raising operation at issue in the instant case-by incorrectly identifying the zoning of the property as agricultural instead of commercial. Defendant failed to seek a variance, and his registration was ultimately revoked. The DNR sought to permanently enjoin defendant Harvey from possessing cervidae or operating a cervidae livestock operation without a permit and to require him to submit his animals for disease testing. However, the case was ultimately dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Michigan has historically recognized public nuisance and private nuisance as two distinct violations. Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co. , 440 Mich. 293, 302, 487 N.W.2d 715 (1992). "A private nuisance is a nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land. It evolved as a doctrine to resolve conflicts between neighboring land uses." Id . at 302-303 (citation omitted). "[T]he gist of a private nuisance action is an interference with the occupation or use of land or an interference with servitudes relating to land." Id . at 303, 487 N.W.2d 715. A public nuisance, in contrast, "involves the unreasonable interference with a right common to all members of the general public." Id . at 304 n. 8, 487 N.W.2d 715. Plaintiff, a governmental entity, did not specify which type of nuisance it was claiming against defendants in its complaint. Notably, the mere fact that a condition violates a local ordinance does not render that condition a public nuisance. Ypsilanti Charter Twp. v. Kircher , 281 Mich.App. 251, 277-278, 761 N.W.2d 761 (2008). However, plaintiff's language regarding the stench and flies drawn by deer and hog waste suggests that plaintiff was suing defendants because defendants' piggery interfered with the general public's "health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience[.]" See Cloverleaf Car Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. , 213 Mich.App. 186, 190, 540 N.W.2d 297 (1995). The distinction is material, as an action for the abatement of a private nuisance is subject to the three-year statute of limitations under MCL 600.5805(10). Terlecki v. Stewart , 278 Mich.App. 644, 652-654, 754 N.W.2d 899 (2008) (rejecting the application of the 15-year period of limitations under MCL 600.5801(4) to a claim of private nuisance).
This is sometimes also referred to as the "continuing-violations doctrine," "continuing-wrongful-acts doctrine," and "continuing-tort doctrine." Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club , 283 Mich.App. 264, 282, 769 N.W.2d 234 (2009).
Amicus curiae, the Michigan Townships Association, cites to Joy Mgt. Co. v. City of Detroit , 183 Mich.App. 334, 342, 455 N.W.2d 55 (1990), for the proposition that the continuing-wrongs doctrine has been applied in the context of local ordinance violations. However, Joy Mgt. Case was published years before Garg or Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust , and so its holding-to the extent that it applied the continuing-wrongs doctrine-is no longer valid. | [
116,
102,
-68,
-50,
-114,
97,
48,
-68,
67,
-125,
103,
87,
-81,
-62,
-123,
61,
-29,
105,
77,
-3,
-59,
-78,
103,
2,
119,
-69,
-126,
-45,
123,
-49,
-27,
71,
76,
84,
66,
-43,
-58,
-86,
-87,
94,
14,
7,
-101,
-20,
113,
74,
-72,
107,
28,
79,
49,
-36,
-22,
46,
49,
-59,
9,
40,
75,
61,
-63,
121,
-69,
5,
63,
6,
-93,
-58,
-112,
67,
106,
111,
-108,
57,
17,
-24,
114,
-74,
-106,
20,
-49,
-103,
40,
98,
98,
0,
77,
-11,
-88,
-72,
38,
94,
11,
-122,
-72,
8,
27,
34,
-82,
-97,
50,
52,
-92,
126,
-19,
-99,
95,
-20,
6,
-26,
-108,
-77,
71,
-80,
-100,
-61,
-25,
7,
48,
117,
-49,
-30,
88,
103,
114,
91,
-114,
-110
] |
Swartzle, P.J.
For a valid plea agreement, it is axiomatic that there must be an actual agreement on the essential features of the plea. When there are multiple proposed plea agreements and hearings, as here, reference to a "prior plea" will likely be ambiguous and require some clarification on the record, unlike as here. Defendant, Peter Thomas Brinkey, pleaded guilty to several driving-related offenses, but the record confirms a lack of clarity with regard to essential sentencing features. As explained below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant appeals by leave granted his guilty-plea convictions of operating while intoxicated (OWI), third offense, MCL 257.625(1) ; driving while license suspended (DWLS), second offense, MCL 257.904(1) ; and unlawful use of a license plate, MCL 257.256. The trial court sentenced defendant, as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to 2 to 25 years of imprisonment for the OWI conviction and one day, time served, for the DWLS and unlawful use of a license plate convictions.
Defendant does not contest any aspect of his first guilty plea on January 4, 2017, and at the first plea hearing both defendant's attorney and the prosecution stated that they believed all the requirements of MCR 6.302 had been met. At the first plea hearing, defendant pleaded guilty and the trial court told defendant that if the court was not going to comply with the sentence recommendation in his presentence investigation report (PSIR), the court would permit defendant to withdraw his guilty plea (the original agreement). After informing defendant that it would not comply with the sentence recommendation in his PSIR, the trial court permitted defendant to withdraw his guilty plea at the first sentencing hearing on April 20, 2017.
At the May 10, 2017 pretrial hearing, the trial court stated that the parties and the trial court had agreed to a Cobbs agreement, which the trial court referred to as a " Cobbs cap." The trial court informed defendant that the Cobbs cap would prevent defendant's minimum sentence from exceeding two years. Defendant then pleaded guilty at the second plea hearing on June 7, 2017. At the second plea hearing, however, the trial court simply asked defendant if he "want[ed] to reinstate [his] prior plea." Defendant responded, "Yes, with the understanding that I could get an updated PSI" and the trial court agreed that defendant could get a new PSIR. At no point after the first plea hearing did the trial court ever inform defendant of his rights again and, importantly, at the second plea hearing the phrase "prior plea" was never defined. There was also no discussion at the second plea hearing about the Cobbs cap.
At the second sentencing hearing on June 27, 2017, as soon as the trial court issued defendant's sentence, defendant stated that he wanted to withdraw his plea because the trial court "didn't agree with the sentence, with the recommendation." When the trial court stated that defendant requested a two-year Cobbs agreement, defendant replied that he "never pled guilty to this." The trial court disagreed and denied defendant's subsequent motion to withdraw. This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This Court reviews for abuse of discretion a trial court's ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea. People v. Pointer-Bey , 321 Mich. App. 609, 615, 909 N.W.2d 523 (2017). "A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes." Id . (cleaned up). Furthermore, this Court reviews de novo the interpretation of court rules. People v. Blanton , 317 Mich. App. 107, 117, 894 N.W.2d 613 (2016).
A. PLEA AGREEMENTS
While there is "no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea once the trial court has accepted it," a defendant "may move to have his or her plea set aside on the basis of an error in the plea proceedings." Pointer-Bey , 321 Mich. App. at 615, 909 N.W.2d 523 (cleaned up). "[A]
motion to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing is governed by MCR 6.310(C)." Blanton , 317 Mich. App. at 118, 894 N.W.2d 613. In relevant part, MCR 6.310(C)(4) states:
If the trial court determines that there was an error in the plea proceeding that would entitle the defendant to have the plea set aside, the court must give the advice or make the inquiries necessary to rectify the error and then give the defendant the opportunity to elect to allow the plea and sentence to stand or to withdraw the plea. If the defendant elects to allow the plea and sentence to stand, the additional advice given and inquiries made become part of the plea proceeding for the purposes of further proceedings, including appeals.
"In other words, under MCR 6.310(C), a defendant seeking to withdraw his or her plea after sentencing must demonstrate a defect in the plea-taking process." Blanton , 317 Mich. App. at 118, 894 N.W.2d 613 (cleaned up).
"Guilty- and no-contest-plea proceedings are governed by MCR 6.302." People v. Cole , 491 Mich. 325, 330, 817 N.W.2d 497 (2012). Strict compliance with MCR 6.302 is not essential. People v. Plumaj , 284 Mich. App. 645, 649, 773 N.W.2d 763 (2009). Our Supreme Court has adopted a doctrine of substantial compliance, and whether a particular departure from the requirements of MCR 6.302 justifies or requires reversal depends on the nature of the noncompliance. Id . Automatic invalidation of a plea due to a violation of MCR 6.302 is only required if the defendant establishes "that the waiver was neither understandingly nor voluntarily made, not merely that the trial court failed to strictly comply with MCR 6.402(B)." Id . at 651, 773 N.W.2d 763 (cleaned up).
To ensure that a guilty plea is accurate, the trial court must establish a factual basis for the plea. In order for a plea to be voluntary and understanding, the defendant must be fully aware of the direct consequences of the plea. The penalty to be imposed is the most obvious direct consequence of a conviction. Therefore, MCR 6.302(B)(2) requires the trial court to advise a defendant, prior to the defendant's entering a plea, of the maximum possible sentence for the offense and any mandatory minimum sentence required by law. [ Pointer-Bey , 321 Mich. App. at 616, 909 N.W.2d 523 (cleaned up).]
"[B]ecause the understanding, voluntary, and accurate components of MCR 6.302(A) are premised on the requirements of constitutional due process, a trial court may, in certain circumstances, be required to inform a defendant about facts not explicitly required by MCR 6.302." Blanton , 317 Mich. App. at 119, 894 N.W.2d 613 (cleaned up). Furthermore, "[w]hen a defendant is not fully informed about the penalties to be imposed, there is a clear defect in the plea proceedings because the defendant is unable to make an understanding plea under MCR 6.302(B)." Id . (cleaned up). Finally, "[a] plea that is not voluntary and understanding violates the state and federal Due Process Clauses." Id . (cleaned up).
Cobbs agreements, when made, are related to guilty pleas. A Cobbs agreement is an agreement in which a defendant agrees to plead guilty in reliance on the trial court's preliminary evaluation of the sentence to be imposed. Cobbs , 443 Mich. at 283, 505 N.W.2d 208. Under a Cobbs agreement a defendant is permitted to withdraw his or her guilty plea "in the event that the trial court determines that it must exceed the preliminary evaluation." People v. Fonville , 291 Mich. App. 363, 369 n. 3, 804 N.W.2d 878 (2011). MCR 6.302 is silent on Cobbs agreements.
In Plumaj , 284 Mich. App. at 649, 773 N.W.2d 763, this Court established that strict compliance with MCR 6.302 is not essential. Specifically, Plumaj dealt with a defendant who pleaded guilty and nolo contendere to multiple offenses. Id . at 646-647, 773 N.W.2d 763. At the plea hearing, the trial court did not place the defendant under oath. Relying on this error, the defendant moved to withdraw his pleas. Id . at 647, 773 N.W.2d 763. The trial court granted the defendant's motion and set aside his pleas because the defendant was not placed under oath at his plea hearing. Id . This Court reversed, holding that strict compliance with MCR 6.302 is not essential to ensure the validity of a plea and that, while the oath requirement is an aspect of MCR 6.302, the analysis of whether a plea should be set aside should instead hinge on "the nature of the noncompliance" and on whether the defendant's plea was "understandingly, knowingly, voluntarily, and accurately made." Id . at 649, 651-652, 773 N.W.2d 763. Thus, in Plumaj , this Court held that, although strict compliance with MCR 6.302 is not essential, a defendant's plea must always be understanding, knowing, voluntary, and accurate.
In People v. Kosecki , 73 Mich. App. 293, 294, 251 N.W.2d 283 (1977), the defendant pleaded guilty on March 7, 1975, and was subsequently permitted to withdraw his guilty plea on the day of sentencing, March 21, 1975. The defendant withdrew his guilty plea because the defendant's attorney had doubts that a factual basis to support the defendant's plea had been established at the original plea-taking. Id . Later that same day, however, the defendant requested to reinstate his guilty plea. Id . On appeal, the defendant sought to withdraw his second guilty plea, arguing that he was not properly informed of his constitutional rights when he made his second guilty plea. Id . at 296, 251 N.W.2d 283. This Court noted, however, that the defendant admitted and the record confirmed that the defendant was properly informed of his constitutional rights when he made his first guilty plea on March 7, 1975. Id . at 297. Importantly, while the trial court "did not again go through the rights waived before accepting defendant's retendered plea, defendant's counsel stated, with defendant's agreement, that he had gone over these rights a number of times with defendant." Id . Because only two weeks had passed between the defendant's first and second guilty pleas, there was "no indication that defendant offered his original plea in ignorance of its consequences." Id . at 297-298, 251 N.W.2d 283. Accordingly, this Court affirmed the defendant's plea-based conviction. Id .
B. CONFUSION APPARENT FROM THE RECORD
As in both Plumaj and Kosecki , defendant initially pleaded guilty before the trial court permitted him to withdraw his guilty plea. Unlike Plumaj and Kosecki , however, defendant's first guilty plea was controlled by the original plea agreement while, at least in the trial court's opinion, his second guilty plea was controlled by the Cobbs agreement. Although the trial court clarified the terms of the Cobbs agreement when defendant chose to reinstate his "prior plea" at the second plea hearing, what defendant and the trial court each meant by the phrase "prior plea" was never addressed. Furthermore, at the second plea hearing the trial court also failed to inform defendant of his rights, as it had properly done at the first plea hearing. Thus, like in Plumaj , the trial court failed to comply strictly with the requirements of MCR 6.302. Because strict compliance with MCR 6.302 is not essential, however, whether defendant's second guilty plea should be set aside hinges on the nature of the trial court's noncompliance with the requirements of the court rule and whether defendant's second guilty plea was understandingly, knowingly, voluntarily, and accurately made. See Plumaj , 284 Mich. App. at 649-652, 773 N.W.2d 763.
While Kosecki can provide guidance here, it differs in one crucial aspect from this case. In Kosecki , the sentencing conditions to which the defendant agreed did not change between his first and second guilty pleas. In contrast, when defendant in this case initially pleaded guilty it was under the original agreement; when defendant pleaded guilty the second time, the trial court's understanding was that the original agreement had no effect on defendant's second guilty plea and that the Cobbs cap controlled the terms of defendant's second guilty plea. The trial court failed to ensure that defendant knew that the Cobbs cap, not the original agreement, controlled his sentence after his second guilty plea. Thus, this case differs from Kosecki because, while in Kosecki the defendant argued that he did not know the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, here defendant argues that he did not know the conditions under which he pleaded guilty.
Defendant's confusion concerning the conditions under which he pleaded guilty is apparent from a review of the record. While the trial court clearly outlined the circumstances of the Cobbs cap at the pretrial hearing, no such clarity was provided at the second plea hearing. At the second plea hearing, the trial court simply asked defendant if he wished to reinstate his "prior plea." Although the trial court never explained what it meant by "prior plea," defendant's understanding of "prior plea" is apparent from his response. As soon as the trial court issued defendant's sentence, defendant stated that he wanted to withdraw his plea because the trial court "didn't agree with the sentence, with the recommendation." When the trial court stated that defendant requested the Cobbs cap, defendant replied that he "never pled guilty to this." Thus, it does not appear that defendant was fully aware of the direct consequences of his second guilty plea and, therefore, defendant's second guilty plea was not understandingly, knowingly, voluntarily, and accurately made. See Plumaj , 284 Mich. App. at 652, 773 N.W.2d 763. Furthermore, the nature of the trial court's noncompliance is serious in nature in this case because it appears from the record before us that the trial court made no effort to ensure that defendant actually knew and understood that he was pleading guilty under the conditions established by the Cobbs cap instead of the conditions of the original agreement. See id. at 649, 773 N.W.2d 763. Because defendant's second guilty plea was not understandingly, knowingly, voluntarily, and accurately made, the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
III. CONCLUSION
The record in this case shows a lack of clarity with respect to essential features of the plea agreement, specifically the sentencing parameters. The trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant's motion to withdraw and, accordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Markey and Ronayne Krause, JJ., concurred with Swartzle, P.J.
People v. Brinkey , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April 9, 2018 (Docket No. 342419).
People v. Cobbs , 443 Mich. 276, 505 N.W.2d 208 (1993). | [
48,
-7,
-40,
-19,
8,
96,
59,
20,
122,
-1,
109,
114,
-89,
-42,
17,
59,
-21,
127,
85,
41,
-43,
-69,
115,
-48,
-25,
-77,
-61,
83,
-11,
111,
-68,
-112,
12,
-32,
-62,
85,
102,
-62,
53,
82,
-114,
5,
-101,
-32,
80,
-45,
52,
98,
4,
-117,
51,
-106,
-95,
46,
20,
76,
-23,
108,
15,
41,
-64,
16,
-97,
13,
115,
4,
-94,
20,
28,
7,
-12,
93,
-100,
49,
112,
-23,
114,
22,
-106,
-108,
73,
-101,
-116,
106,
102,
1,
80,
-51,
-83,
-100,
46,
58,
-99,
-122,
-8,
-48,
75,
36,
-121,
-3,
115,
18,
44,
110,
-20,
5,
117,
96,
-125,
-28,
-112,
-111,
-51,
116,
-60,
19,
-13,
5,
-112,
85,
-52,
-26,
93,
-90,
121,
-45,
-65,
-109
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the time for filing their answer is GRANTED. The answer will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before September 30, 2019. | [
116,
112,
-4,
-51,
42,
33,
49,
-100,
101,
91,
103,
19,
-11,
-50,
20,
125,
-49,
107,
-41,
-37,
-49,
-89,
119,
89,
52,
-13,
-45,
95,
124,
111,
-12,
-35,
76,
48,
-118,
21,
-58,
-56,
-119,
28,
-50,
-117,
-103,
-28,
-47,
74,
32,
48,
90,
10,
49,
70,
-29,
46,
25,
101,
-24,
104,
-39,
117,
-63,
-31,
-101,
-115,
-3,
54,
-127,
-91,
-98,
-58,
104,
46,
0,
61,
8,
-24,
51,
-106,
-57,
116,
107,
-69,
40,
98,
99,
-128,
-55,
102,
-72,
-86,
85,
74,
-113,
-26,
19,
9,
107,
-84,
-90,
61,
108,
16,
-90,
126,
110,
-60,
60,
46,
10,
-50,
-26,
-109,
-97,
78,
28,
-118,
-5,
-122,
48,
97,
-23,
-28,
92,
78,
59,
121,
-62,
-72
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellants to extend the time for filing their reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before September 24, 2019. | [
-12,
112,
-4,
-51,
42,
32,
56,
-66,
69,
91,
102,
83,
-75,
-50,
-108,
125,
-53,
107,
-41,
-5,
79,
-89,
39,
120,
116,
-15,
-45,
-41,
124,
-17,
-4,
-99,
76,
112,
-54,
20,
-42,
-56,
-119,
28,
-50,
11,
-103,
-28,
-47,
72,
32,
56,
90,
11,
49,
68,
-29,
111,
26,
71,
-23,
105,
89,
117,
-63,
-63,
-101,
-123,
-1,
52,
-127,
-91,
-98,
-58,
-24,
62,
-128,
61,
8,
-24,
23,
-74,
-121,
116,
107,
-5,
-120,
98,
98,
-128,
-55,
-2,
-72,
-86,
84,
90,
-113,
-26,
-109,
9,
43,
-84,
54,
61,
108,
16,
-90,
126,
110,
-124,
53,
45,
10,
-50,
-78,
-89,
-97,
94,
24,
-117,
-29,
-122,
48,
97,
-23,
-18,
92,
78,
27,
121,
-62,
57
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 23, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-111,
88,
-44,
-100,
40,
112,
-13,
21,
65,
-89,
103,
-45,
-83,
-70,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
103,
-37,
-49,
-73,
55,
64,
114,
-13,
-97,
94,
115,
110,
-12,
59,
78,
96,
-102,
-108,
70,
-55,
105,
28,
-114,
7,
-35,
109,
-47,
8,
40,
35,
-98,
15,
17,
-44,
-31,
44,
-104,
115,
-56,
104,
-39,
41,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
20,
-128,
20,
-116,
-121,
-16,
126,
-80,
49,
29,
-3,
112,
-74,
-105,
60,
97,
-69,
-99,
89,
99,
-127,
76,
-17,
93,
-87,
53,
90,
-81,
-94,
-118,
57,
-53,
33,
-110,
-71,
116,
54,
39,
124,
106,
5,
93,
-20,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-77,
31,
124,
-96,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
97,
-35,
56,
28,
78,
51,
73,
-26,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 7, 2019 judgment 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.
Bernstein, J., did not participate because he has a family member with an interest that could be affected by the proceeding. | [
-112,
104,
-35,
-68,
-88,
96,
-69,
22,
64,
-29,
119,
81,
-83,
-6,
20,
127,
-19,
63,
101,
-37,
-33,
-77,
23,
33,
122,
-13,
-109,
93,
113,
127,
-12,
-6,
-52,
34,
-118,
-44,
70,
-55,
79,
84,
-114,
7,
89,
77,
-111,
98,
32,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-33,
-29,
44,
-103,
105,
-56,
40,
93,
33,
-63,
-40,
-69,
10,
127,
20,
-126,
20,
-97,
-81,
-40,
62,
-112,
16,
0,
-27,
113,
38,
-109,
118,
105,
-7,
-115,
117,
99,
-127,
77,
-27,
-8,
-87,
63,
74,
-115,
-121,
-39,
57,
73,
96,
-106,
-65,
116,
84,
47,
124,
110,
13,
29,
-4,
2,
-58,
-96,
-77,
-98,
-4,
-96,
-88,
-30,
-102,
18,
96,
-35,
-24,
28,
78,
51,
125,
-2,
-16
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2019 judgment 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. | [
-111,
-52,
-43,
-100,
-88,
112,
-45,
21,
65,
-89,
119,
-45,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-19,
15,
117,
91,
-51,
-77,
55,
64,
114,
-45,
-41,
-35,
51,
110,
-12,
58,
14,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
73,
-112,
-114,
7,
-39,
109,
-111,
8,
40,
35,
-106,
15,
17,
-36,
97,
44,
24,
99,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
20,
-126,
20,
-103,
-61,
-16,
126,
-72,
49,
29,
-4,
112,
-74,
-105,
52,
97,
-69,
13,
117,
99,
-127,
76,
-18,
-12,
-87,
21,
122,
-81,
-90,
-102,
56,
-53,
33,
-110,
-67,
124,
52,
47,
124,
110,
5,
93,
-4,
-128,
-101,
-92,
-73,
27,
60,
-80,
-23,
-21,
-102,
18,
97,
-59,
-72,
28,
78,
51,
121,
-2,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2018 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. | [
-104,
104,
-35,
-100,
-118,
-32,
-45,
29,
64,
-25,
111,
-45,
-81,
-6,
-124,
127,
-83,
15,
118,
91,
-33,
-73,
119,
-55,
114,
-13,
-45,
95,
115,
110,
-9,
56,
78,
112,
-118,
-44,
70,
-63,
111,
28,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-111,
72,
32,
43,
62,
15,
17,
-74,
-29,
108,
28,
98,
-56,
104,
-35,
41,
-63,
-48,
-126,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
-117,
-58,
-32,
126,
-104,
49,
12,
-20,
112,
-74,
-105,
52,
105,
-69,
24,
81,
107,
-127,
12,
-21,
-104,
-86,
53,
120,
-81,
34,
-112,
25,
-53,
32,
-110,
-67,
116,
54,
47,
126,
74,
13,
85,
-2,
34,
-49,
-92,
-73,
91,
60,
32,
-23,
-6,
26,
18,
97,
-35,
-8,
92,
76,
51,
91,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2019 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. | [
-111,
-40,
-36,
-100,
-88,
96,
-45,
21,
65,
-25,
111,
-45,
-81,
-110,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
117,
-37,
-33,
-73,
55,
96,
114,
-13,
-109,
95,
49,
110,
-12,
57,
78,
98,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
73,
24,
-114,
7,
-39,
109,
-111,
74,
40,
99,
30,
15,
17,
-68,
-29,
44,
-100,
115,
-56,
104,
-39,
41,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
-114,
-121,
-48,
126,
-72,
49,
13,
-28,
112,
-74,
-105,
54,
97,
-69,
-100,
89,
103,
-127,
108,
-18,
92,
-88,
61,
90,
-81,
-90,
-104,
57,
-53,
49,
-106,
-65,
116,
20,
39,
124,
106,
13,
77,
-4,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-73,
31,
44,
-88,
-23,
-21,
-102,
18,
97,
-51,
120,
28,
78,
55,
89,
-26,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 11, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). | [
-112,
-8,
-4,
-84,
42,
96,
3,
28,
65,
-61,
119,
-47,
-81,
-42,
0,
127,
13,
87,
99,
123,
-37,
-89,
23,
64,
115,
-13,
-109,
95,
51,
79,
-28,
56,
76,
-56,
-118,
-48,
70,
-54,
105,
16,
-114,
3,
121,
109,
-15,
9,
56,
75,
-98,
15,
49,
-36,
99,
47,
24,
96,
-55,
104,
-37,
61,
-63,
-48,
-101,
13,
110,
20,
-128,
84,
12,
-125,
112,
126,
-80,
49,
25,
-24,
114,
54,
-125,
52,
65,
-69,
-120,
96,
66,
-127,
76,
-17,
121,
-88,
13,
90,
-98,
-92,
-38,
56,
107,
111,
-106,
-71,
125,
86,
44,
60,
110,
-123,
125,
108,
-62,
-69,
-124,
-73,
-97,
124,
-96,
-117,
-29,
-102,
16,
33,
-35,
-16,
92,
70,
51,
83,
-18,
-16
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 20, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-127,
88,
-43,
-100,
40,
112,
-45,
29,
65,
-93,
103,
-45,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
101,
-37,
-49,
-75,
55,
65,
118,
-5,
-33,
95,
113,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-64,
73,
24,
-114,
15,
-39,
109,
-47,
24,
40,
-29,
30,
15,
17,
-99,
-29,
108,
-104,
115,
-56,
104,
-37,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
-114,
-121,
-48,
126,
-72,
49,
13,
-4,
112,
-10,
-105,
60,
97,
-71,
-108,
89,
103,
-127,
108,
-17,
88,
-24,
53,
58,
-81,
-90,
-118,
57,
-53,
33,
-110,
-65,
124,
22,
39,
124,
106,
-107,
93,
-20,
-126,
-53,
-92,
-77,
27,
44,
-96,
-88,
-21,
-102,
26,
97,
-51,
56,
28,
78,
51,
89,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the motion to add issue is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-105,
-8,
-43,
-100,
-120,
96,
-13,
-75,
65,
-89,
103,
83,
-83,
-37,
16,
127,
-51,
15,
87,
91,
-49,
-77,
23,
81,
114,
-13,
-46,
95,
-15,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
96,
-118,
-44,
70,
-55,
73,
20,
-114,
15,
-39,
109,
-47,
106,
40,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-4,
-31,
44,
-104,
99,
-24,
40,
93,
61,
-61,
-48,
-126,
15,
125,
20,
-127,
52,
-100,
-58,
-16,
62,
-76,
49,
25,
-23,
112,
-10,
-105,
52,
33,
-71,
-52,
113,
99,
-127,
76,
-18,
-71,
-21,
21,
88,
-81,
-122,
-37,
25,
75,
42,
-122,
-71,
116,
20,
39,
62,
-21,
-123,
21,
-84,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-77,
95,
60,
-96,
41,
-21,
-98,
18,
32,
-51,
104,
92,
78,
51,
121,
-42,
-80
] |
By order of October 2, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the March 1, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v. Ames (Docket No. 156077). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been denied in People v. Ames on June 26, 2019, 504 Mich. ----, 929 N.W.2d 283 (2019), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-44,
104,
-3,
-68,
40,
-31,
83,
-105,
65,
-25,
47,
83,
-81,
-46,
16,
127,
29,
47,
113,
91,
-54,
-89,
71,
-31,
118,
-45,
-37,
-33,
115,
110,
-76,
120,
78,
112,
-118,
-44,
70,
-55,
-55,
28,
-122,
-123,
-71,
73,
-111,
-62,
60,
-85,
24,
15,
17,
-74,
-15,
44,
24,
-61,
-24,
40,
-37,
-65,
69,
-16,
-102,
15,
-1,
52,
-127,
20,
-117,
-121,
-32,
62,
-112,
49,
21,
-20,
49,
-74,
-109,
126,
75,
-69,
36,
65,
99,
-127,
-100,
-17,
-8,
-6,
-100,
126,
-97,
-90,
-40,
25,
107,
33,
-124,
-65,
116,
54,
34,
126,
110,
13,
20,
124,
-126,
-49,
-90,
-79,
-113,
124,
-90,
-125,
-29,
5,
50,
97,
-35,
40,
92,
6,
51,
99,
-26,
-104
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 25, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-100,
104,
-35,
-68,
-86,
-32,
-13,
31,
65,
-25,
103,
-45,
-81,
-6,
-124,
127,
-115,
15,
116,
91,
-33,
-73,
119,
72,
114,
-45,
-37,
-33,
-77,
110,
-12,
56,
78,
96,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
-19,
16,
-114,
7,
-39,
109,
-47,
72,
40,
35,
54,
15,
17,
-76,
-29,
44,
28,
80,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-126,
15,
121,
4,
-128,
20,
-117,
-59,
-48,
62,
-104,
49,
13,
-20,
112,
-90,
-105,
52,
105,
-69,
24,
81,
99,
-127,
12,
-21,
121,
-85,
53,
104,
-65,
-90,
-110,
24,
-53,
33,
-106,
-67,
52,
52,
39,
126,
110,
-115,
93,
46,
2,
-33,
-92,
-73,
27,
60,
-80,
-23,
-5,
-106,
-112,
97,
-115,
56,
28,
78,
51,
121,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's May 28, 2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G). | [
-112,
-8,
-20,
-52,
10,
96,
3,
23,
65,
-29,
103,
-13,
-81,
-102,
-112,
127,
-50,
95,
113,
121,
-20,
-77,
70,
96,
115,
-45,
-45,
95,
117,
-17,
100,
63,
76,
-30,
-102,
-107,
68,
-63,
-95,
86,
-114,
-125,
-99,
101,
-47,
8,
48,
35,
30,
15,
53,
76,
-31,
44,
26,
99,
-23,
40,
-33,
105,
-63,
88,
-103,
15,
127,
4,
-128,
52,
28,
-63,
-40,
62,
-100,
17,
24,
-24,
119,
54,
-121,
116,
105,
-5,
-84,
113,
103,
-127,
76,
-2,
-103,
-88,
53,
26,
-115,
-90,
-101,
56,
-53,
35,
-106,
-3,
116,
54,
38,
60,
78,
-107,
93,
-4,
2,
-17,
-96,
-77,
95,
124,
-120,
-31,
-13,
-110,
18,
48,
-51,
-16,
28,
74,
17,
59,
-26,
56
] |
By order of February 4, 2019, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Gamble v. United States . On order of the Court, the case having been decided on June 17, 2019, 587 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 1960, 204 L.Ed.2d 322 (2019), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-112,
-24,
-44,
124,
56,
96,
115,
-65,
64,
-89,
39,
81,
45,
-46,
20,
127,
-33,
111,
119,
123,
-54,
-73,
55,
64,
114,
-13,
-45,
-33,
51,
116,
-20,
126,
72,
96,
-118,
-44,
70,
-55,
105,
30,
-114,
7,
-101,
109,
17,
73,
40,
107,
90,
14,
49,
-10,
-31,
44,
25,
-53,
-24,
40,
-39,
-36,
-55,
-47,
-110,
15,
-19,
20,
-128,
37,
-97,
-122,
-24,
63,
-108,
48,
85,
-7,
115,
36,
-110,
116,
97,
-69,
0,
81,
99,
-127,
13,
-17,
-3,
-88,
52,
-2,
-113,
-90,
-38,
57,
75,
104,
-108,
-99,
117,
22,
45,
126,
-21,
77,
21,
-68,
-62,
-114,
-90,
-77,
-33,
116,
-72,
83,
-21,
115,
50,
101,
-116,
104,
28,
74,
51,
11,
-42,
-16
] |
By order of December 4, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v. Ames (Docket No. 156077). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been denied in Ames on June 26, 2019, 504 Mich. ----, 929 N.W.2d 283 (2019), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-44,
104,
124,
-68,
56,
-31,
19,
-105,
65,
-25,
47,
83,
-81,
-14,
17,
127,
29,
47,
113,
91,
-37,
-89,
87,
65,
118,
-109,
-37,
95,
115,
110,
-10,
122,
78,
112,
-118,
-107,
-58,
-63,
-55,
92,
-124,
-123,
-69,
9,
-111,
-62,
60,
-85,
26,
-49,
17,
-74,
-15,
44,
24,
67,
-24,
32,
-37,
-70,
-59,
-15,
-70,
15,
-1,
52,
-128,
20,
-114,
-121,
-64,
126,
-112,
49,
28,
-20,
49,
-74,
-105,
126,
75,
-5,
52,
105,
35,
-127,
-100,
-17,
-8,
-72,
28,
122,
-97,
-90,
-40,
25,
107,
41,
-108,
-69,
116,
54,
38,
-2,
110,
12,
22,
124,
-126,
-49,
-92,
-79,
-113,
124,
-92,
-125,
-21,
21,
50,
97,
-36,
56,
92,
68,
51,
123,
-28,
-112
] |
By order of October 30, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v. Ames (Docket No. 156077 ). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been denied in Ames on June 26, 2019, 504 Mich. ----, 929 N.W.2d 283 (2019), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-44,
104,
-3,
-68,
40,
-31,
83,
-107,
65,
-25,
47,
83,
-81,
-46,
17,
127,
29,
47,
113,
91,
-53,
-89,
71,
-31,
118,
-109,
-37,
95,
115,
110,
-12,
120,
78,
112,
-118,
-108,
-58,
-55,
-55,
88,
-124,
-123,
-87,
73,
-111,
-61,
60,
-85,
26,
15,
17,
-74,
-15,
44,
24,
67,
-24,
40,
-37,
-85,
-59,
-16,
-70,
13,
-1,
52,
-128,
20,
-118,
-121,
-64,
126,
-112,
49,
21,
-20,
49,
-74,
-105,
62,
75,
-69,
52,
73,
35,
-127,
-68,
-17,
-8,
-88,
28,
122,
-97,
-90,
-40,
25,
107,
33,
-108,
-69,
116,
54,
38,
126,
110,
12,
30,
124,
-126,
-49,
-92,
-79,
-113,
124,
-90,
-125,
-29,
5,
50,
97,
-35,
56,
92,
4,
55,
123,
-26,
-104
] |
By order of October 2, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the April 30, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v. Ames (Docket No. 156077 ). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been denied in Ames on June 26, 2019, 504 Mich. ----, 929 N.W.2d 283 (2019), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-44,
104,
-3,
-68,
40,
-31,
83,
-107,
65,
-25,
47,
83,
-81,
-14,
17,
127,
29,
47,
113,
91,
-37,
-89,
67,
-31,
118,
-77,
-33,
-33,
115,
110,
-12,
120,
78,
112,
-118,
-108,
-60,
-63,
-55,
92,
-124,
-123,
-71,
73,
-111,
-61,
60,
-85,
30,
15,
17,
-74,
-15,
44,
24,
-61,
-24,
40,
-37,
-81,
-59,
-16,
-70,
13,
-1,
52,
-96,
20,
-118,
-121,
-64,
126,
-112,
49,
-107,
-20,
49,
-74,
-105,
62,
75,
-69,
48,
73,
99,
-127,
-68,
-17,
-7,
-88,
28,
122,
-97,
-90,
-40,
25,
107,
33,
-108,
-65,
116,
54,
34,
126,
110,
12,
22,
124,
-126,
-49,
-92,
-79,
-113,
124,
-92,
-125,
-21,
5,
50,
97,
-35,
56,
92,
4,
51,
107,
-26,
-104
] |
By order of September 12, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v. Ames (Docket No. 156077). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been denied in People v. Ames on June 26, 2019, 504 Mich. ----, 929 N.W.2d 283 (2019), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-44,
104,
-3,
-68,
56,
-31,
82,
-73,
65,
-89,
39,
83,
-81,
-46,
16,
127,
29,
47,
113,
123,
-54,
-89,
71,
65,
118,
-45,
91,
-33,
115,
110,
-12,
120,
78,
112,
-118,
-44,
70,
73,
-55,
92,
-114,
-123,
-71,
73,
-111,
-64,
60,
-85,
24,
15,
17,
-74,
-31,
44,
24,
-61,
-24,
40,
-37,
-65,
69,
-48,
-118,
13,
-1,
52,
-95,
20,
-114,
-121,
-16,
126,
-112,
49,
21,
-20,
49,
-74,
-109,
126,
73,
-71,
52,
97,
99,
-127,
-100,
-17,
-8,
-6,
-100,
-6,
-97,
-90,
-48,
25,
107,
97,
-124,
-69,
116,
54,
38,
-4,
110,
12,
20,
124,
-126,
-49,
-92,
-79,
-113,
124,
-92,
-125,
-29,
5,
50,
97,
-35,
40,
92,
6,
51,
107,
-18,
-104
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 1, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-112,
88,
-44,
-68,
-88,
96,
-45,
21,
65,
-25,
103,
-45,
-81,
-102,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
103,
91,
-33,
-75,
55,
-24,
118,
-45,
-101,
95,
113,
110,
-12,
58,
14,
98,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
73,
16,
-114,
7,
-39,
45,
-111,
9,
40,
-93,
30,
15,
17,
-76,
-31,
44,
-100,
115,
-56,
104,
-35,
41,
-63,
80,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
14,
-125,
-48,
126,
-80,
17,
28,
-11,
112,
-74,
-105,
60,
101,
-69,
-116,
81,
99,
-127,
76,
-17,
24,
-88,
53,
90,
-81,
-94,
-104,
57,
-53,
49,
-122,
-69,
124,
22,
39,
124,
110,
5,
77,
-4,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-73,
31,
60,
-88,
-24,
-21,
-102,
18,
33,
-35,
120,
28,
78,
55,
89,
-58,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 28, 2019 judgment 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. | [
-112,
-20,
-43,
-68,
-88,
96,
-45,
21,
65,
-25,
119,
-45,
-83,
-38,
20,
127,
-19,
15,
116,
91,
95,
-79,
55,
96,
114,
-45,
-41,
93,
115,
111,
-12,
121,
14,
-30,
-102,
-108,
70,
-55,
73,
80,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-111,
64,
40,
99,
30,
15,
17,
-68,
-31,
44,
26,
99,
-56,
104,
-39,
41,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
127,
4,
-126,
52,
-113,
-61,
-48,
62,
-76,
17,
21,
-20,
112,
38,
-105,
52,
105,
-69,
-116,
85,
103,
-127,
76,
-22,
-104,
-87,
21,
90,
-83,
-90,
-101,
56,
-53,
49,
2,
-67,
124,
52,
39,
124,
110,
13,
79,
-4,
-128,
15,
-92,
-77,
91,
60,
-80,
105,
-29,
-102,
18,
97,
-35,
-8,
28,
74,
55,
121,
-18,
56
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 19, 2019 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. | [
-111,
88,
-43,
-100,
40,
112,
-45,
21,
65,
-89,
103,
-45,
-83,
-70,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
103,
-37,
-49,
-75,
55,
-63,
118,
-13,
-41,
-33,
115,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
73,
28,
-114,
7,
-39,
109,
-47,
8,
40,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-4,
-29,
44,
24,
115,
-56,
104,
-39,
41,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
-108,
-128,
16,
-116,
-121,
-16,
126,
-72,
49,
13,
-4,
112,
-74,
-105,
60,
97,
-69,
-100,
89,
103,
-128,
108,
-17,
24,
-88,
53,
122,
-81,
-89,
-102,
57,
-53,
49,
-110,
-69,
116,
22,
39,
124,
107,
-123,
93,
-20,
-128,
-117,
-92,
-73,
-97,
60,
-96,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
97,
-35,
56,
28,
78,
51,
89,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 26, 2019 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. | [
-111,
-8,
-43,
-100,
40,
112,
-45,
21,
65,
-89,
103,
-45,
-83,
-70,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
117,
-37,
-49,
-75,
23,
-63,
122,
-13,
-41,
-33,
51,
110,
-28,
58,
14,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
73,
20,
-114,
7,
-39,
109,
-47,
24,
40,
-93,
22,
15,
17,
-4,
-31,
44,
24,
115,
-56,
104,
-37,
41,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
20,
-128,
16,
-116,
-122,
-16,
126,
-72,
49,
13,
-4,
112,
-74,
-105,
60,
97,
-5,
-108,
81,
99,
-127,
108,
-18,
-104,
-88,
53,
122,
-81,
-89,
-102,
57,
-53,
33,
-110,
-69,
116,
52,
39,
124,
75,
-123,
95,
-84,
-128,
-53,
-92,
-73,
-97,
60,
-96,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
97,
-51,
56,
28,
78,
51,
89,
-50,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 5, 2019 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. | [
-111,
-4,
-43,
-100,
40,
-16,
-13,
29,
65,
-25,
111,
-45,
-83,
-70,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
103,
-37,
-51,
-77,
55,
-63,
114,
-13,
-41,
-33,
115,
110,
-28,
58,
14,
-32,
-102,
-108,
70,
-56,
73,
20,
-114,
7,
-39,
109,
-15,
10,
40,
-93,
-98,
15,
17,
-12,
-29,
44,
24,
115,
-56,
104,
-39,
41,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
20,
-128,
20,
-116,
-57,
-32,
126,
-80,
49,
29,
-4,
112,
-74,
-105,
62,
33,
-69,
12,
89,
103,
-128,
108,
-18,
-3,
-88,
53,
90,
-81,
-89,
-102,
57,
-53,
49,
-110,
-67,
117,
84,
47,
124,
106,
13,
93,
-4,
-128,
-53,
-96,
-73,
31,
60,
-80,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
97,
-51,
56,
28,
78,
55,
89,
-18,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2019 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. | [
-111,
88,
-44,
-116,
40,
-32,
-45,
21,
65,
-89,
111,
-45,
-83,
-70,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
101,
-37,
-49,
-75,
55,
-63,
114,
-13,
-41,
-34,
115,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
73,
20,
-114,
7,
-39,
109,
-47,
24,
40,
-29,
30,
15,
17,
-44,
-29,
44,
24,
99,
-56,
104,
-39,
41,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
20,
-128,
20,
-118,
-121,
-16,
126,
-80,
49,
29,
-4,
112,
-10,
-105,
60,
105,
-69,
-108,
81,
103,
-128,
108,
-18,
-35,
-86,
53,
122,
-81,
-90,
-118,
57,
-53,
49,
-110,
-71,
116,
54,
39,
124,
106,
5,
87,
-20,
-126,
-53,
-92,
-73,
27,
44,
-80,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
97,
-35,
56,
28,
78,
51,
89,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 19, 2019 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. | [
-111,
88,
-43,
-100,
40,
96,
-45,
21,
65,
-89,
111,
-45,
-83,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
117,
91,
-49,
-75,
55,
-63,
102,
-13,
-105,
-33,
113,
111,
-12,
58,
78,
-30,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
73,
28,
-114,
7,
-39,
109,
-47,
72,
40,
3,
30,
15,
17,
-36,
-29,
44,
24,
115,
-56,
104,
-37,
41,
-63,
-48,
-78,
15,
125,
20,
-128,
16,
-118,
-121,
-48,
126,
-72,
49,
13,
-8,
112,
-74,
-105,
60,
97,
-71,
-108,
89,
103,
-127,
108,
-17,
88,
-88,
53,
122,
-83,
-89,
-102,
25,
-53,
49,
-110,
-69,
116,
22,
39,
124,
106,
-123,
93,
-20,
-126,
-53,
-92,
-77,
95,
60,
-96,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
33,
-35,
56,
28,
78,
51,
89,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 4, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-112,
-20,
-44,
-100,
-120,
-32,
-45,
29,
65,
-89,
127,
-45,
-81,
-70,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
101,
-37,
-33,
-73,
23,
65,
114,
-13,
-41,
-36,
115,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
-32,
-102,
-108,
70,
-55,
73,
20,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-111,
8,
40,
99,
62,
15,
17,
-12,
-93,
44,
24,
99,
-56,
104,
-37,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
16,
-126,
20,
-116,
-61,
-48,
62,
-80,
49,
13,
-4,
112,
-74,
-105,
60,
41,
-69,
-115,
125,
99,
-127,
76,
-18,
-4,
-88,
53,
122,
-81,
-89,
-102,
57,
-53,
49,
-110,
-71,
116,
118,
47,
-4,
106,
5,
127,
-4,
-128,
-97,
-92,
-77,
-101,
60,
-80,
41,
-21,
-102,
26,
97,
-59,
120,
92,
78,
51,
121,
-2,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 18, 2019 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. | [
-112,
88,
-36,
-84,
40,
-16,
-45,
21,
65,
-89,
111,
-45,
-83,
-6,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
103,
91,
-49,
-75,
55,
65,
98,
-13,
-105,
95,
115,
110,
-28,
58,
78,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-56,
73,
28,
-114,
7,
-39,
109,
-47,
72,
56,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-36,
-29,
44,
24,
99,
-56,
104,
-37,
41,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
16,
-117,
-121,
-48,
126,
-72,
49,
13,
-8,
112,
-74,
-105,
60,
105,
-71,
-108,
89,
103,
-127,
108,
-17,
89,
-87,
61,
122,
-81,
39,
-102,
57,
-53,
49,
-110,
-71,
116,
22,
39,
124,
106,
-123,
93,
-4,
-128,
-53,
-92,
-73,
95,
60,
-80,
-87,
-21,
-98,
26,
97,
-35,
56,
28,
78,
51,
89,
-10,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 10, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). | [
-112,
-8,
-4,
-84,
42,
97,
3,
28,
65,
-125,
119,
-47,
-81,
-10,
0,
127,
12,
87,
103,
123,
95,
-93,
7,
64,
-29,
-45,
-109,
95,
51,
78,
-28,
-72,
76,
-56,
-118,
-48,
70,
-62,
41,
24,
-114,
3,
121,
109,
-15,
11,
56,
-21,
-98,
15,
49,
-52,
98,
46,
24,
96,
-55,
104,
-37,
61,
-63,
81,
-77,
13,
110,
20,
-128,
84,
8,
3,
112,
62,
-80,
49,
1,
-23,
114,
-74,
-125,
52,
97,
-69,
-88,
96,
66,
-127,
108,
-17,
121,
-88,
13,
90,
-97,
-91,
-38,
56,
107,
73,
-106,
-71,
125,
86,
44,
124,
110,
-124,
124,
108,
-64,
-65,
-92,
-77,
-97,
124,
-92,
-117,
-21,
-102,
16,
33,
-99,
48,
94,
70,
51,
87,
-18,
-48
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's April 30, 2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G). | [
-112,
-8,
-4,
-52,
-114,
96,
-109,
30,
65,
99,
103,
-13,
-81,
-70,
-112,
127,
-49,
95,
113,
121,
-20,
-77,
70,
65,
115,
-45,
-46,
95,
117,
-17,
108,
47,
78,
-24,
-102,
-43,
68,
-64,
-23,
86,
-114,
-125,
-99,
-27,
-15,
8,
48,
35,
22,
14,
53,
-34,
-31,
44,
26,
-29,
-23,
40,
-33,
121,
-63,
88,
-103,
15,
111,
20,
-127,
52,
28,
-63,
-8,
126,
28,
17,
24,
-24,
119,
54,
-121,
116,
105,
-5,
44,
113,
103,
-127,
76,
-2,
-104,
-88,
53,
26,
15,
-90,
-102,
56,
-53,
35,
-110,
-71,
116,
38,
46,
-68,
78,
-107,
125,
-4,
2,
-17,
-96,
-77,
-35,
124,
-88,
105,
-21,
-109,
18,
48,
-51,
-16,
28,
78,
51,
-85,
-26,
-8
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 26, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. We note that a similar issue is pending before the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases of Dep't of Talent & Economic Development v. AMBS Message Center, Inc. (Docket No. 343521), Dep't of Talent & Economic Development v. Great Oaks Country Club, Inc. (Docket No. 343846), and Dep't of Talent & Economic Development v. NBC Truck Equipment, Inc. (Docket No. 343989). | [
-112,
122,
-35,
-116,
42,
-30,
114,
-65,
65,
-29,
39,
-45,
-83,
-6,
21,
127,
-1,
79,
118,
127,
-33,
-75,
71,
-62,
86,
-13,
-77,
-33,
123,
79,
-28,
122,
77,
-32,
-118,
-44,
70,
-64,
-59,
28,
-114,
5,
-71,
-19,
-39,
-125,
48,
35,
50,
14,
17,
-34,
-13,
44,
25,
-63,
40,
106,
-35,
11,
-63,
97,
-70,
13,
119,
20,
0,
20,
-99,
-57,
-40,
127,
-104,
48,
29,
-24,
16,
-76,
-105,
52,
107,
-5,
41,
19,
-30,
-125,
-100,
-49,
-36,
-72,
29,
90,
-97,
-11,
-102,
25,
90,
-21,
-106,
-99,
85,
22,
4,
-4,
74,
-59,
23,
108,
-118,
-57,
-91,
-77,
-114,
84,
-100,
-118,
-21,
-106,
18,
113,
-116,
42,
92,
78,
19,
15,
-26,
-112
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant to extend the time for filing her supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before July 24, 2019. | [
-12,
114,
-76,
-51,
11,
32,
48,
-74,
-31,
-37,
103,
83,
-73,
-54,
20,
125,
-17,
43,
-57,
-45,
-27,
-93,
39,
72,
-42,
-45,
-45,
95,
120,
127,
-10,
-65,
76,
48,
-118,
-107,
70,
-56,
-119,
28,
-34,
11,
-103,
97,
-47,
106,
40,
57,
90,
11,
49,
84,
-13,
107,
27,
93,
-24,
104,
-35,
53,
-61,
-32,
-109,
7,
-1,
22,
-127,
100,
30,
-50,
72,
-66,
-120,
61,
24,
-55,
50,
-74,
-110,
116,
107,
-69,
-128,
98,
99,
0,
-104,
-1,
-100,
-70,
84,
90,
-113,
-74,
-77,
41,
-53,
40,
-74,
61,
60,
20,
39,
126,
111,
-124,
56,
44,
10,
-42,
-106,
-77,
-99,
88,
28,
-117,
-13,
-121,
16,
96,
-23,
-24,
28,
86,
17,
-5,
-62,
-118
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time for filing her supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before July 15, 2019. | [
116,
114,
-76,
-52,
43,
32,
48,
-66,
101,
-37,
103,
83,
-73,
-54,
20,
121,
-17,
107,
69,
-45,
-25,
-93,
55,
73,
-14,
-45,
-45,
95,
120,
127,
-10,
-65,
76,
48,
-54,
-107,
86,
-56,
-119,
28,
-34,
11,
-119,
-31,
-47,
106,
40,
57,
90,
11,
49,
86,
-13,
107,
27,
93,
-88,
104,
-36,
53,
-62,
-32,
-109,
-121,
-1,
22,
-127,
-92,
30,
-50,
72,
-66,
8,
61,
8,
-55,
50,
-106,
-110,
116,
107,
-5,
-128,
98,
98,
-128,
-36,
-18,
-100,
-86,
84,
90,
-113,
-74,
-69,
41,
-53,
40,
-74,
61,
60,
16,
39,
126,
111,
-124,
56,
44,
10,
-42,
-126,
-77,
29,
120,
12,
-117,
-13,
-121,
16,
96,
-23,
-20,
28,
94,
25,
-5,
-62,
-86
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration of the application is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 23, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motions to stay, to dismiss, and for other miscellaneous relief are DENIED. | [
-107,
120,
-44,
-84,
-120,
112,
-13,
-75,
65,
-25,
103,
83,
-17,
-78,
-112,
127,
-51,
71,
101,
-5,
-35,
-73,
23,
97,
-14,
-13,
-109,
93,
-79,
111,
-12,
51,
78,
98,
-118,
-108,
70,
-55,
-55,
16,
-114,
7,
-104,
108,
-79,
74,
40,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-50,
-31,
44,
28,
115,
-56,
104,
-39,
41,
-63,
-48,
-126,
15,
127,
4,
-128,
52,
-114,
-122,
-48,
62,
-76,
49,
24,
-3,
112,
-10,
-105,
60,
97,
-69,
-95,
17,
99,
-127,
76,
-17,
25,
-86,
52,
10,
-81,
-90,
-37,
25,
75,
35,
-122,
-69,
117,
52,
39,
124,
106,
-115,
93,
-20,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-73,
-33,
60,
40,
-95,
-21,
19,
16,
97,
-51,
56,
28,
78,
51,
91,
-20,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED and the request for appellate bond is DENIED as moot. The application for leave to appeal the April 23, 2019 judgment 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. | [
-48,
120,
-44,
-100,
-54,
96,
-109,
-99,
-63,
-57,
43,
81,
-83,
-6,
-108,
123,
-99,
87,
101,
-7,
95,
-75,
55,
65,
-13,
-13,
-45,
-35,
-79,
-17,
-12,
51,
14,
96,
-118,
-43,
70,
-55,
105,
120,
-114,
-121,
-72,
109,
-47,
121,
56,
-85,
30,
11,
17,
-34,
-29,
44,
24,
98,
-56,
104,
91,
57,
-63,
-47,
-79,
15,
-1,
20,
-128,
20,
-100,
-59,
-48,
-66,
-72,
17,
13,
-22,
112,
-10,
-105,
116,
105,
-69,
-84,
83,
99,
-128,
76,
-17,
-79,
-88,
53,
8,
-81,
-126,
-53,
24,
75,
32,
-126,
-71,
125,
54,
-89,
124,
46,
5,
86,
-20,
2,
-53,
-92,
-77,
-97,
-68,
-128,
-87,
-21,
24,
18,
97,
-51,
120,
92,
110,
51,
-5,
-50,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-107,
-52,
-43,
-100,
-88,
112,
-45,
21,
65,
-89,
119,
-45,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-19,
15,
101,
91,
-51,
-77,
55,
64,
114,
-45,
-45,
-36,
115,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
-32,
-102,
-108,
70,
-55,
73,
16,
-114,
7,
-35,
109,
-47,
8,
40,
-93,
-106,
15,
17,
-36,
-29,
44,
24,
99,
-56,
104,
-39,
41,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
20,
-126,
20,
-97,
-61,
-16,
126,
-72,
49,
29,
-4,
112,
-74,
-105,
52,
97,
-69,
13,
85,
99,
-127,
76,
-18,
-12,
-87,
55,
122,
-81,
-90,
-102,
57,
-53,
33,
-110,
-71,
124,
52,
47,
-4,
110,
5,
93,
-12,
-128,
-101,
-92,
-73,
27,
60,
-80,
-23,
-21,
-102,
26,
97,
-59,
-72,
28,
78,
51,
121,
-10,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 27, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). | [
-112,
104,
-36,
-68,
42,
96,
3,
28,
65,
-125,
103,
-43,
-81,
-10,
0,
127,
13,
127,
103,
-5,
-33,
-93,
7,
64,
123,
-14,
-109,
95,
-73,
-50,
-28,
56,
76,
-8,
-118,
-44,
70,
-62,
109,
88,
-114,
3,
-39,
109,
-15,
9,
56,
75,
30,
15,
49,
-52,
99,
46,
24,
104,
-24,
105,
-37,
61,
-63,
-47,
-85,
13,
122,
20,
-128,
116,
-104,
35,
112,
126,
-72,
49,
1,
-23,
48,
-74,
-125,
52,
107,
-69,
-120,
33,
-62,
-127,
77,
-51,
125,
-88,
15,
120,
-98,
-92,
-46,
24,
107,
73,
-106,
-71,
93,
22,
45,
124,
110,
-124,
85,
44,
-62,
-49,
-124,
-77,
-114,
-4,
-96,
-85,
-30,
-106,
16,
33,
-51,
-72,
94,
70,
51,
31,
-18,
-40
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 9, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-100,
108,
-33,
-84,
-120,
-16,
-13,
-99,
65,
-73,
63,
-47,
-83,
-38,
-108,
127,
-68,
15,
116,
90,
-34,
-79,
119,
-64,
114,
-45,
-42,
-35,
115,
111,
-12,
56,
14,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
105,
-104,
-114,
7,
-99,
77,
-47,
11,
40,
99,
30,
15,
17,
-74,
99,
108,
25,
99,
-56,
40,
-37,
-83,
-63,
-40,
34,
13,
125,
4,
-128,
50,
-101,
-89,
-40,
63,
-112,
48,
13,
-24,
112,
-90,
-105,
52,
105,
-69,
8,
117,
35,
-128,
109,
-25,
-72,
-85,
7,
122,
-81,
-93,
-102,
25,
-21,
33,
-110,
-67,
124,
22,
47,
124,
110,
13,
78,
-10,
2,
-113,
-28,
-73,
27,
124,
-72,
-87,
-21,
-98,
-110,
97,
-43,
120,
94,
76,
55,
125,
-26,
24
] |
On January 23, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-112,
-8,
-12,
-100,
42,
96,
-21,
-99,
65,
-93,
103,
83,
-81,
-70,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
117,
91,
-35,
-74,
55,
65,
114,
-13,
-45,
95,
-79,
126,
-11,
58,
10,
96,
-118,
-44,
70,
-55,
105,
92,
-114,
7,
-35,
77,
49,
32,
48,
35,
30,
15,
49,
-12,
-31,
44,
24,
66,
-56,
40,
91,
61,
-47,
-47,
-74,
13,
127,
16,
-127,
20,
-100,
-122,
-8,
63,
-112,
57,
1,
-27,
114,
-90,
-109,
60,
97,
-69,
44,
112,
103,
-128,
108,
-9,
-40,
-85,
52,
122,
-81,
2,
-37,
57,
75,
96,
-110,
-69,
124,
22,
39,
124,
106,
20,
30,
-28,
66,
-113,
-92,
-77,
-33,
-20,
-80,
42,
-21,
-110,
18,
97,
-99,
104,
92,
78,
51,
105,
-9,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 22, 2019 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 to appoint counsel is DENIED. | [
-107,
-16,
-4,
-84,
-120,
112,
-78,
61,
65,
-29,
111,
83,
-83,
-70,
-112,
127,
13,
7,
119,
91,
-51,
-75,
55,
65,
114,
-37,
-101,
-33,
-15,
111,
-28,
59,
78,
112,
-118,
-44,
70,
-55,
109,
28,
-114,
7,
-7,
44,
-111,
9,
56,
-93,
30,
15,
49,
94,
-13,
44,
24,
115,
-56,
104,
91,
61,
-63,
-47,
-110,
13,
125,
20,
-128,
16,
10,
-121,
-16,
62,
-96,
49,
25,
-32,
112,
-10,
-105,
60,
101,
-69,
-120,
89,
103,
-127,
-20,
-17,
48,
-88,
21,
10,
-83,
-90,
-37,
57,
-53,
32,
-110,
-69,
125,
20,
39,
124,
110,
-107,
93,
108,
-128,
-117,
-92,
-77,
95,
-4,
-88,
-119,
-21,
-110,
18,
97,
-99,
120,
28,
78,
51,
91,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 20, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for peremptory reversal is DENIED. | [
-103,
-24,
-36,
-68,
-118,
96,
-13,
-97,
65,
-29,
111,
-45,
-81,
-14,
-128,
127,
-115,
15,
119,
-5,
-49,
-77,
23,
-47,
114,
-45,
-109,
95,
117,
111,
-28,
59,
14,
112,
-102,
-43,
70,
-63,
-17,
28,
-114,
-121,
-39,
-19,
-111,
15,
48,
-93,
54,
15,
49,
-58,
-29,
108,
24,
99,
-56,
104,
-37,
57,
-63,
-112,
-77,
13,
127,
20,
-127,
16,
-98,
-58,
-48,
126,
-128,
49,
25,
-21,
112,
-10,
-105,
60,
97,
123,
-96,
65,
99,
-127,
-52,
-17,
56,
-86,
48,
74,
-65,
38,
-101,
28,
-22,
32,
-110,
-69,
124,
52,
47,
126,
74,
-107,
85,
-84,
-126,
-49,
-92,
-77,
-33,
124,
-88,
-93,
-5,
-74,
18,
113,
-35,
56,
28,
70,
51,
59,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 6, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-103,
104,
-36,
-68,
-118,
-16,
-13,
31,
64,
-29,
111,
-45,
-81,
-14,
4,
127,
45,
15,
55,
91,
-33,
-77,
55,
-39,
118,
-45,
-33,
94,
115,
-18,
-28,
56,
14,
-16,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
107,
28,
-116,
7,
-7,
-51,
-47,
42,
24,
35,
30,
15,
49,
-12,
-29,
44,
24,
98,
-56,
104,
-37,
40,
-47,
-47,
-78,
15,
124,
20,
-126,
16,
-102,
-125,
80,
126,
-104,
49,
12,
-23,
112,
-74,
-109,
54,
105,
59,
28,
113,
70,
-127,
108,
-17,
121,
-86,
41,
106,
-65,
-90,
-110,
25,
-21,
32,
-110,
-69,
116,
20,
47,
124,
74,
-107,
92,
-2,
-126,
-49,
-92,
-73,
-37,
60,
-88,
-23,
-5,
-106,
18,
33,
-35,
-72,
28,
70,
51,
73,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-127,
120,
-44,
-68,
-88,
112,
-45,
21,
65,
-93,
103,
-45,
-81,
-70,
16,
127,
-115,
15,
101,
-37,
-33,
-79,
119,
-63,
118,
-13,
-33,
-33,
-15,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
-16,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
105,
24,
-114,
7,
-39,
109,
-47,
8,
40,
-93,
30,
15,
17,
-68,
-31,
44,
-104,
113,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-47,
-110,
15,
125,
20,
-128,
20,
-114,
-121,
-16,
62,
-72,
49,
29,
-19,
112,
-10,
-105,
60,
105,
-69,
-124,
89,
99,
-128,
108,
-18,
89,
-86,
53,
122,
-81,
34,
-54,
25,
-53,
32,
-110,
-71,
124,
118,
39,
124,
106,
-107,
29,
-20,
-128,
-117,
-92,
-77,
91,
108,
-88,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
97,
-35,
56,
28,
78,
51,
121,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 20, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court. | [
-111,
120,
-44,
-68,
40,
112,
-13,
21,
65,
-89,
111,
-45,
-81,
-70,
20,
127,
-99,
15,
103,
91,
-33,
-75,
119,
65,
126,
-13,
-41,
-33,
113,
126,
-28,
58,
78,
96,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
73,
24,
-114,
7,
-39,
109,
-47,
72,
40,
-93,
30,
15,
17,
-36,
-31,
44,
-104,
115,
-56,
104,
-33,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
61,
20,
-128,
20,
-116,
-122,
-16,
127,
-72,
49,
13,
-4,
112,
-26,
-105,
52,
97,
-71,
-100,
89,
99,
-127,
108,
-18,
89,
-24,
53,
90,
-81,
-90,
-120,
25,
-53,
32,
-110,
-69,
116,
54,
39,
124,
67,
-123,
93,
-84,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-77,
31,
44,
-96,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
33,
-51,
120,
28,
78,
51,
89,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 14, 2019 judgment 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. | [
-112,
-20,
-43,
-68,
-120,
112,
-45,
21,
65,
-89,
127,
-47,
-81,
-70,
20,
127,
-67,
15,
119,
91,
-33,
-75,
55,
65,
114,
-13,
-45,
-35,
115,
110,
-12,
56,
76,
96,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
73,
-104,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
72,
40,
-93,
30,
15,
17,
-4,
-31,
44,
26,
99,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-106,
15,
125,
16,
-128,
48,
-116,
-58,
-16,
63,
-68,
49,
13,
-20,
112,
-90,
-105,
52,
105,
-71,
-116,
93,
107,
-127,
44,
-18,
-40,
-21,
53,
122,
-81,
-90,
-102,
56,
-53,
33,
-126,
-71,
116,
54,
47,
124,
98,
5,
29,
-4,
-128,
-113,
-92,
-77,
-33,
60,
-80,
41,
-29,
-102,
18,
33,
-99,
120,
92,
78,
51,
89,
-2,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for permission to file pro per Standard 4 brief is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the December 11, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
48,
125,
124,
-116,
-118,
96,
-109,
31,
65,
-61,
39,
81,
-81,
-14,
-100,
127,
-81,
47,
117,
-13,
-33,
-77,
87,
-63,
114,
-13,
19,
93,
-15,
-18,
-12,
51,
78,
-24,
-86,
-44,
70,
-55,
-53,
92,
-114,
7,
-103,
-51,
-47,
-115,
32,
35,
62,
15,
49,
-18,
-93,
44,
24,
-61,
-24,
108,
-37,
52,
-63,
48,
-77,
31,
111,
20,
-127,
20,
-102,
-50,
80,
46,
64,
57,
9,
-23,
114,
-74,
-105,
116,
43,
-5,
-124,
97,
104,
1,
93,
-17,
-103,
-86,
20,
88,
63,
39,
-109,
25,
-54,
40,
-106,
-67,
117,
20,
47,
126,
106,
-123,
31,
-20,
-114,
-58,
-122,
-78,
-97,
104,
40,
-117,
-21,
-106,
18,
33,
-43,
97,
92,
78,
51,
105,
-18,
-104
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 7, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-104,
104,
-36,
-68,
-118,
-16,
-13,
31,
65,
-29,
127,
-45,
-83,
-14,
4,
127,
-83,
47,
119,
-37,
-37,
-77,
23,
-55,
118,
-45,
-101,
95,
119,
-18,
-27,
58,
78,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
107,
88,
-116,
7,
-39,
-51,
-47,
42,
48,
-93,
62,
15,
17,
-44,
-29,
44,
-104,
99,
-56,
104,
-37,
60,
-47,
81,
-78,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
48,
-102,
-29,
-48,
126,
-104,
49,
12,
-19,
112,
-10,
-107,
54,
105,
57,
12,
81,
99,
-127,
108,
-17,
89,
-86,
53,
106,
-65,
38,
-110,
25,
-21,
-96,
-110,
-69,
116,
22,
47,
124,
74,
-107,
92,
-18,
-94,
-49,
-92,
-73,
-37,
124,
-72,
-87,
-22,
-106,
18,
33,
-35,
-72,
28,
78,
51,
73,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 28, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). | [
-112,
-8,
-4,
-84,
42,
97,
3,
31,
65,
-61,
127,
-43,
-81,
-10,
-128,
127,
45,
119,
99,
123,
-37,
-93,
23,
64,
115,
-46,
-105,
95,
-73,
-49,
-28,
56,
76,
-16,
-118,
-60,
70,
-62,
41,
16,
-114,
3,
-39,
77,
-15,
11,
56,
75,
30,
15,
49,
-50,
115,
46,
24,
104,
-55,
105,
-37,
61,
-63,
-47,
-69,
13,
126,
20,
-128,
52,
26,
35,
80,
126,
-72,
49,
1,
-23,
114,
-74,
-125,
52,
105,
-69,
-88,
97,
66,
-127,
77,
-49,
89,
-88,
15,
88,
-97,
-92,
-46,
24,
107,
-21,
-106,
-71,
93,
22,
44,
124,
78,
-124,
92,
44,
-62,
-49,
-124,
-73,
-113,
124,
-88,
-117,
-29,
-110,
16,
33,
-35,
-80,
30,
66,
51,
31,
-18,
-40
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 20, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant's motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion to remand is DENIED. | [
-112,
-16,
-4,
-84,
-118,
112,
-77,
-98,
65,
-45,
103,
83,
-81,
-14,
-128,
127,
43,
79,
117,
-5,
-37,
-73,
23,
81,
115,
-45,
-110,
-33,
-75,
-49,
-28,
48,
76,
-8,
-118,
-44,
70,
-63,
105,
24,
-114,
7,
120,
-19,
-15,
11,
48,
3,
30,
15,
49,
-34,
-29,
46,
29,
96,
-23,
104,
91,
125,
-63,
-48,
-93,
13,
47,
52,
-128,
52,
-114,
38,
80,
126,
-108,
49,
17,
-22,
118,
-74,
-105,
52,
99,
-69,
40,
32,
66,
-127,
93,
-17,
25,
-88,
25,
94,
-100,
-89,
-38,
24,
73,
-95,
-106,
-67,
85,
22,
44,
124,
78,
-107,
117,
108,
-54,
-49,
-92,
-79,
-117,
124,
-88,
-32,
-6,
-109,
16,
37,
-51,
-72,
28,
74,
51,
11,
-2,
-16
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 30, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). | [
-112,
120,
-4,
-84,
-86,
96,
3,
28,
65,
-125,
119,
-43,
-81,
-10,
0,
127,
13,
127,
99,
-5,
-37,
-89,
7,
64,
115,
-45,
-109,
95,
55,
79,
-28,
56,
78,
-48,
-118,
-48,
70,
-94,
105,
24,
-114,
3,
-39,
109,
-15,
11,
56,
75,
30,
15,
49,
-50,
99,
46,
24,
96,
-88,
105,
-37,
61,
-63,
-47,
-85,
13,
126,
20,
-128,
84,
8,
35,
112,
126,
-72,
49,
1,
-23,
112,
54,
-125,
116,
107,
-69,
-88,
33,
-62,
-127,
77,
-19,
125,
-88,
15,
120,
-100,
-92,
-46,
24,
107,
77,
-122,
-79,
93,
22,
45,
124,
110,
-124,
93,
108,
-62,
-49,
-124,
-77,
-113,
124,
-96,
-117,
-29,
-106,
16,
33,
-51,
-72,
94,
70,
51,
31,
-18,
-40
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 30, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-104,
120,
-35,
-84,
-88,
-32,
-13,
-99,
65,
-89,
47,
-47,
-81,
-14,
-108,
127,
-99,
15,
116,
91,
-33,
-73,
87,
-64,
118,
-45,
-97,
94,
119,
111,
-12,
57,
14,
-16,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
105,
24,
-116,
7,
-99,
77,
-47,
11,
56,
35,
126,
15,
17,
-106,
99,
44,
-104,
99,
-56,
104,
-37,
45,
-63,
-48,
-78,
13,
121,
4,
-128,
16,
-117,
-91,
-48,
62,
-112,
49,
13,
-24,
112,
-74,
-107,
52,
107,
-69,
-120,
85,
103,
-127,
108,
-21,
25,
-86,
53,
42,
-65,
39,
-112,
25,
-21,
-95,
-110,
-69,
124,
22,
47,
126,
110,
77,
79,
-10,
34,
-113,
-92,
-77,
31,
124,
-72,
-120,
-21,
-106,
18,
113,
-35,
124,
28,
76,
55,
57,
-26,
56
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-111,
-8,
-43,
-68,
-88,
112,
-13,
21,
64,
-89,
103,
-45,
-83,
-70,
16,
127,
-99,
15,
101,
91,
-33,
-75,
119,
65,
126,
-13,
-41,
-33,
113,
110,
-28,
56,
78,
96,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
105,
24,
-114,
7,
-35,
109,
-47,
73,
40,
-93,
22,
15,
17,
-4,
-29,
44,
24,
113,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
20,
-128,
20,
14,
-126,
-16,
127,
-104,
49,
13,
-4,
112,
-90,
-105,
52,
97,
-71,
-100,
89,
99,
-127,
44,
-18,
-39,
-22,
53,
122,
-81,
-90,
-102,
25,
-53,
33,
-110,
-69,
124,
18,
39,
124,
75,
-123,
93,
-84,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-73,
31,
60,
-88,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
33,
-51,
56,
28,
78,
51,
89,
-58,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 16, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant's motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). | [
-112,
-16,
-68,
-84,
-86,
96,
-77,
-98,
65,
-41,
103,
81,
-81,
-6,
4,
127,
59,
75,
117,
-7,
88,
-79,
23,
-64,
115,
-37,
-110,
-33,
-73,
-49,
-28,
48,
76,
-8,
-118,
-44,
70,
-64,
105,
24,
-114,
69,
-71,
-19,
-15,
11,
48,
107,
30,
15,
49,
-98,
99,
47,
29,
96,
-23,
8,
-39,
45,
-63,
80,
-125,
-115,
-17,
52,
-128,
52,
-118,
-89,
-48,
63,
-112,
49,
1,
-24,
118,
-106,
-109,
52,
105,
-69,
40,
49,
-62,
-127,
109,
-17,
24,
-88,
15,
90,
-99,
-89,
-38,
24,
104,
-95,
-106,
-79,
117,
18,
44,
124,
78,
-123,
53,
44,
-118,
-33,
-92,
-77,
-117,
124,
40,
-32,
-22,
-105,
50,
53,
-51,
-16,
92,
74,
51,
31,
-18,
112
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 8, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). | [
-112,
120,
-4,
-84,
42,
97,
3,
28,
65,
-125,
127,
-47,
-81,
-42,
20,
127,
13,
95,
99,
123,
91,
-89,
7,
64,
115,
-14,
-109,
95,
55,
79,
-28,
-72,
76,
-40,
-54,
-44,
70,
-62,
105,
24,
-114,
-125,
-71,
109,
-15,
11,
56,
107,
30,
15,
49,
-116,
115,
46,
24,
96,
-55,
105,
-37,
61,
-63,
80,
-85,
13,
126,
20,
-128,
20,
9,
39,
112,
62,
-80,
49,
1,
-24,
48,
-74,
-121,
52,
75,
-69,
-120,
33,
66,
-127,
109,
-49,
57,
-88,
15,
90,
-97,
-91,
-46,
56,
107,
-51,
-106,
-71,
125,
22,
44,
124,
110,
-124,
93,
108,
-126,
-49,
-124,
-77,
-113,
124,
-96,
-117,
-29,
-121,
16,
33,
-35,
114,
94,
70,
55,
31,
-18,
-40
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's March 5, 2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G). | [
-112,
-8,
-20,
-52,
14,
96,
-125,
54,
65,
-29,
103,
-45,
-83,
-70,
-112,
123,
-49,
95,
-15,
121,
-20,
-77,
70,
65,
115,
-45,
-62,
95,
117,
-17,
-28,
63,
76,
-22,
-102,
-43,
68,
-64,
-87,
94,
-114,
-125,
25,
-27,
-15,
8,
48,
35,
30,
15,
53,
-60,
-31,
44,
26,
-61,
-31,
104,
-33,
121,
-63,
88,
-111,
15,
111,
4,
-128,
116,
28,
-51,
-8,
62,
28,
17,
24,
-24,
119,
54,
-121,
84,
105,
-5,
44,
113,
-25,
-127,
76,
-2,
-104,
-86,
53,
26,
13,
-90,
-38,
56,
-55,
35,
-106,
-3,
116,
54,
46,
-4,
78,
-107,
93,
-4,
2,
-17,
-96,
-77,
93,
62,
-88,
-31,
-5,
18,
18,
48,
-51,
-16,
94,
74,
49,
43,
-9,
120
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 17, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-98,
108,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
115,
21,
65,
-89,
103,
-45,
-83,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
116,
91,
-33,
-79,
87,
-55,
114,
-45,
-38,
-35,
-13,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
-16,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
105,
16,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
92,
40,
99,
62,
15,
17,
-108,
99,
108,
24,
98,
-56,
108,
-39,
-67,
-63,
-40,
-126,
15,
121,
4,
-126,
52,
-117,
-25,
-40,
62,
-104,
49,
9,
-20,
112,
38,
-111,
116,
105,
-69,
4,
85,
107,
-128,
12,
-25,
-72,
-85,
7,
120,
-67,
38,
-110,
56,
-53,
97,
-110,
-67,
52,
54,
39,
126,
110,
13,
77,
110,
2,
-33,
-92,
-73,
-53,
60,
-80,
-23,
-5,
-74,
18,
97,
-99,
-8,
92,
78,
51,
125,
-10,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's February 4, 2019 order is considered. To clarify the Court's prior order, the February 4, 2019 order granted the defendant's request, in his second motion for miscellaneous relief, to add an issue to his application for leave to appeal. The order denied all other relief requested in the two motions filed by the defendant and denied the application for leave to appeal. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G). | [
-112,
-8,
-4,
-116,
8,
96,
35,
52,
65,
35,
47,
51,
-89,
-102,
-112,
127,
-50,
95,
85,
121,
-33,
-77,
70,
1,
-14,
-45,
19,
95,
-11,
110,
-26,
62,
76,
-24,
-101,
-43,
70,
-56,
-31,
86,
-114,
3,
-103,
-27,
81,
11,
48,
35,
26,
11,
113,
-36,
-31,
44,
26,
-61,
-87,
40,
-33,
61,
-63,
16,
-104,
15,
63,
20,
-127,
52,
-100,
-64,
-48,
127,
-104,
49,
16,
-24,
115,
-14,
-121,
116,
97,
-5,
44,
112,
67,
1,
12,
-17,
-103,
-8,
53,
26,
-81,
-90,
-37,
24,
75,
33,
-106,
-71,
52,
54,
46,
124,
79,
-107,
53,
-84,
-118,
-82,
-96,
-77,
-34,
60,
8,
-93,
-29,
19,
16,
32,
-51,
-80,
92,
70,
51,
-37,
-18,
-100
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's March 5, 2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G). | [
-112,
-8,
-20,
-52,
14,
96,
-125,
54,
65,
-29,
103,
-45,
-83,
-70,
-112,
123,
-49,
95,
-15,
121,
-20,
-77,
70,
65,
115,
-45,
-62,
95,
117,
-17,
-28,
63,
76,
-22,
-102,
-43,
68,
-64,
-87,
94,
-114,
-125,
25,
-27,
-15,
8,
48,
35,
30,
15,
53,
-60,
-31,
44,
26,
-61,
-31,
104,
-33,
121,
-63,
88,
-111,
15,
111,
4,
-128,
116,
28,
-51,
-8,
62,
28,
17,
24,
-24,
119,
54,
-121,
84,
105,
-5,
44,
113,
-25,
-127,
76,
-2,
-104,
-86,
53,
26,
13,
-90,
-38,
56,
-55,
35,
-106,
-3,
116,
54,
46,
-4,
78,
-107,
93,
-4,
2,
-17,
-96,
-77,
93,
62,
-88,
-31,
-5,
18,
18,
48,
-51,
-16,
94,
74,
49,
43,
-9,
120
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 7, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by the Court prior to the completion of the proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals.
Viviano, J., did not participate due to a familial relationship with the presiding circuit court judge in this case. | [
-44,
104,
-35,
-68,
-88,
-32,
-13,
-75,
65,
-125,
103,
-45,
-81,
-6,
16,
123,
77,
111,
102,
123,
-35,
-80,
23,
64,
114,
-13,
-101,
92,
51,
110,
-27,
58,
76,
96,
-86,
-44,
70,
-55,
-31,
80,
-114,
15,
-37,
-51,
-47,
2,
48,
-13,
94,
31,
17,
-65,
-13,
44,
-103,
67,
-24,
40,
89,
63,
-63,
80,
-94,
-123,
125,
20,
19,
52,
-117,
-89,
120,
62,
-112,
17,
0,
-20,
112,
-74,
-109,
52,
107,
-69,
9,
18,
99,
-127,
108,
-29,
120,
-22,
45,
126,
-99,
-89,
-46,
57,
107,
1,
-122,
-65,
116,
118,
47,
124,
110,
-115,
12,
124,
4,
-49,
-92,
-77,
-113,
-4,
-72,
-61,
-21,
-106,
18,
-32,
-35,
-120,
84,
78,
51,
121,
-2,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's February 4, 2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G). | [
-112,
-8,
-4,
-52,
12,
96,
3,
54,
65,
99,
111,
-13,
-81,
-70,
-112,
127,
-50,
95,
-15,
121,
-17,
-77,
70,
65,
115,
-45,
-45,
95,
117,
-2,
-27,
63,
76,
-22,
-38,
-43,
70,
-64,
-87,
86,
-114,
-125,
29,
-27,
-47,
8,
48,
35,
30,
15,
117,
-52,
-31,
44,
26,
67,
-23,
40,
-33,
121,
-63,
89,
-107,
15,
111,
20,
-127,
116,
-100,
-63,
-48,
62,
-100,
17,
24,
-24,
115,
-90,
-123,
116,
105,
-5,
44,
113,
-93,
-127,
76,
-2,
-103,
-86,
53,
26,
47,
-90,
-38,
24,
-53,
35,
-106,
-7,
52,
54,
46,
-4,
78,
-107,
117,
-4,
10,
-81,
-92,
-77,
-34,
60,
-88,
-31,
-29,
-110,
18,
48,
-51,
-16,
94,
78,
17,
59,
-9,
120
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 9, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). | [
-108,
120,
-36,
-84,
42,
-31,
3,
28,
65,
-109,
103,
-47,
-81,
-46,
4,
127,
13,
95,
99,
123,
95,
-89,
3,
80,
115,
-45,
-77,
87,
55,
-50,
-28,
56,
76,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-54,
105,
24,
-114,
3,
-7,
109,
-7,
11,
56,
75,
-98,
15,
49,
-50,
115,
46,
24,
97,
-56,
105,
-37,
61,
-63,
80,
-69,
13,
-2,
20,
-128,
20,
24,
39,
112,
127,
-72,
49,
1,
-24,
114,
-74,
-121,
52,
97,
-69,
-88,
96,
66,
-128,
105,
-17,
121,
-88,
15,
90,
-97,
-92,
-110,
56,
107,
105,
-106,
-71,
93,
22,
44,
60,
-50,
-123,
93,
108,
-62,
-1,
-92,
-73,
-114,
125,
-96,
-117,
-29,
-106,
16,
33,
-51,
-78,
94,
70,
55,
87,
-18,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs. | [
-112,
-32,
-34,
77,
41,
98,
-40,
-66,
97,
-85,
87,
81,
103,
-10,
21,
115,
-77,
103,
-48,
107,
-39,
-73,
87,
-63,
-26,
-45,
19,
81,
-71,
-18,
-25,
63,
66,
-32,
-30,
-44,
70,
-64,
-51,
-48,
10,
33,
-7,
97,
-15,
62,
48,
3,
22,
31,
17,
-97,
-29,
-20,
93,
-62,
-88,
104,
-39,
109,
65,
-80,
-114,
15,
127,
16,
17,
-90,
60,
-58,
-80,
46,
16,
25,
9,
-24,
112,
54,
-117,
126,
106,
89,
-127,
-74,
104,
0,
-47,
-22,
-100,
-32,
102,
124,
-33,
-30,
-103,
89,
9,
33,
-124,
-72,
117,
16,
43,
-38,
-22,
-123,
30,
46,
64,
-117,
-106,
-89,
79,
89,
54,
15,
-22,
-124,
20,
101,
-123,
118,
92,
-57,
59,
87,
-82,
-114
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of Gavin Keith Cullens to file a brief amicus curiae is DENIED. The purported amicus brief submitted on June 26, 2019, is not accepted for filing. | [
-73,
-8,
76,
92,
-118,
33,
-109,
55,
64,
-29,
101,
115,
-83,
-114,
36,
115,
-19,
47,
119,
75,
-17,
-73,
47,
65,
114,
-45,
-61,
-11,
-15,
-19,
-4,
56,
12,
-24,
-54,
85,
70,
-118,
-119,
-108,
14,
56,
0,
-24,
-111,
73,
32,
75,
82,
15,
53,
-42,
-15,
44,
28,
105,
-24,
96,
89,
5,
-56,
-111,
-117,
-114,
31,
20,
-126,
20,
-34,
64,
-48,
62,
16,
-79,
16,
-31,
50,
-82,
-42,
-12,
107,
-7,
-120,
113,
35,
1,
72,
-17,
56,
-86,
55,
91,
-113,
-90,
-45,
49,
107,
-87,
-105,
-65,
49,
87,
-85,
126,
78,
-115,
76,
-84,
-122,
-82,
-62,
-93,
-100,
-72,
12,
64,
-5,
-122,
18,
113,
-34,
-8,
92,
-57,
49,
91,
-90,
-112
] |
On January 23, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the July 13, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered. MCR 7.305(H)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Court of Appeals judgment and REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of whether the defendant's due-process right to be informed of the nature of the charges against her was violated where the trial court convicted her as a principal of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317, and first-degree child abuse, MCL 750.136b(2), despite the prosecution proceeding solely on a theory that the defendant aided and abetted the victim's father in the commission of these crimes. See Cole v. Arkansas , 333 U.S. 196, 201, 68 S.Ct. 514, 92 L.Ed. 644 (1948). The trial court did not resolve prior to trial the defendant's motion to quash the bindover, in which the defendant asserted that the evidence was insufficient to support an accomplice-liability theory, see MCL 767.39, because the evidence only showed that the defendant had failed to prevent the victim's father from harming their son. See People v. Burrel , 253 Mich. 321, 323, 235 N.W. 170 (1931) (" 'Mere presence, even with knowledge that an offense is about to be committed or is being committed, is not enough to make a person an aider or abettor ... nor is mere mental approval, sufficient, nor passive acquiescence or consent.' ") (citation omitted). The Court of Appeals may also address whether the record evidence supports a finding that defendant was guilty as an aider and abettor and any other issue the Court of Appeals determines is necessary to resolve the issue we have remanded to it, in addition to any issues that the defendant raises that relate to the trial court's stated explanation for its verdict, see MCR 6.403.
We do not retain jurisdiction. | [
-80,
-24,
-50,
-83,
40,
97,
58,
-68,
67,
-125,
37,
83,
-81,
-46,
16,
123,
-37,
127,
117,
105,
-47,
-73,
87,
65,
-14,
-13,
-78,
-41,
-77,
78,
-26,
-73,
73,
96,
78,
-43,
66,
-56,
-59,
82,
-114,
13,
-69,
-56,
65,
-126,
52,
43,
30,
14,
53,
-66,
-93,
42,
31,
-62,
73,
46,
91,
-73,
88,
112,
-118,
7,
-33,
16,
-93,
52,
-68,
-123,
-8,
63,
-100,
49,
1,
-23,
114,
22,
-121,
116,
99,
-71,
44,
96,
-29,
-127,
-44,
-25,
-8,
-119,
62,
46,
-99,
-89,
-40,
105,
75,
104,
-122,
-9,
119,
116,
44,
-4,
-17,
77,
84,
108,
64,
-49,
-76,
-77,
-117,
20,
54,
11,
-61,
37,
48,
97,
-36,
106,
84,
66,
19,
-47,
-34,
-48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 4, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).
The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the appellant's claim sounded in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence. In addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellees shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the appellant's brief. The appellees shall also electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of being served with the appellees' brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
The Michigan Association for Justice, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc., and the Negligence Section of the State Bar of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. | [
-12,
-8,
-100,
-116,
40,
99,
48,
-98,
65,
-37,
53,
19,
-81,
-126,
29,
111,
127,
59,
68,
-5,
-36,
-93,
70,
67,
-34,
-77,
50,
-41,
48,
110,
-10,
-14,
73,
112,
-54,
21,
70,
-114,
-55,
-34,
-58,
-115,
-119,
104,
-7,
64,
52,
121,
56,
15,
49,
-34,
-30,
47,
16,
75,
-88,
104,
-55,
21,
-47,
-31,
-117,
13,
-5,
54,
-95,
20,
-98,
-58,
80,
59,
-100,
61,
18,
-20,
48,
-74,
-121,
52,
123,
-69,
12,
103,
99,
-112,
25,
-25,
-35,
24,
12,
90,
30,
-91,
-7,
41,
26,
-88,
-74,
-99,
52,
16,
5,
126,
110,
5,
95,
108,
0,
-49,
-92,
-77,
-97,
120,
-108,
-117,
-29,
55,
16,
121,
-56,
110,
88,
67,
19,
89,
-42,
-104
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 17, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-98,
108,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
115,
21,
65,
-89,
103,
-45,
-83,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
116,
91,
-33,
-79,
87,
-55,
114,
-45,
-38,
-35,
-13,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
-16,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
105,
16,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
92,
40,
99,
62,
15,
17,
-108,
99,
108,
24,
98,
-56,
108,
-39,
-67,
-63,
-40,
-126,
15,
121,
4,
-126,
52,
-117,
-25,
-40,
62,
-104,
49,
9,
-20,
112,
38,
-111,
116,
105,
-69,
4,
85,
107,
-128,
12,
-25,
-72,
-85,
7,
120,
-67,
38,
-110,
56,
-53,
97,
-110,
-67,
52,
54,
39,
126,
110,
13,
77,
110,
2,
-33,
-92,
-73,
-53,
60,
-80,
-23,
-5,
-74,
18,
97,
-99,
-8,
92,
78,
51,
125,
-10,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 10, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1). The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether the statutory exception in MCL 333.16294 is an element of the offense for which the prosecutor has the burden of proof, see People v. Rios , 386 Mich. 172, 191 N.W.2d 297 (1971) ; but see People v. Langlois , 325 Mich. App. 236, --- N.W.2d ---- (2018) ; (2) if the statutory exception is an element of the offense, whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction under MCL 333.16294 and specifically, whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the defendant's actions were consistent with the practice of medicine and therefore could not be delegated to her under MCL 333.16215 ; and (3) if the statutory exception is not an element of the offense, whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a delegation defense and bring the relevant statutory provisions to the trial court's attention. In addition, the appellant shall address whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's convictions under MCL 400.607(1), and specifically whether the evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant was in possession of facts under which she was aware or should have been aware that her conduct was substantially certain to cause the payment of a Medicaid benefit. See MCL 400.602(f).
In addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the appellant's brief. The appellee shall also electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of being served with the appellee's brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, the Michigan Health & Hospital Association, the Michigan Osteopathic Association, and the Michigan State Medical Society are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. | [
-44,
-16,
-68,
-99,
42,
97,
48,
-70,
65,
-61,
101,
83,
-81,
-46,
-116,
111,
-49,
127,
85,
123,
-51,
-93,
6,
66,
118,
-13,
-77,
-41,
-77,
78,
-26,
-10,
13,
-32,
-54,
85,
70,
-54,
-63,
16,
-114,
-113,
-103,
-23,
113,
-62,
36,
123,
24,
7,
49,
-34,
-29,
44,
24,
75,
-88,
104,
75,
53,
-63,
-32,
-69,
13,
-65,
22,
-95,
68,
-99,
71,
-24,
59,
24,
57,
1,
-23,
48,
-106,
-126,
52,
123,
-69,
8,
100,
-30,
-128,
24,
-27,
93,
-104,
28,
94,
29,
37,
-37,
41,
43,
-120,
-106,
-65,
116,
20,
4,
126,
111,
5,
31,
108,
8,
-57,
-92,
-79,
31,
64,
-34,
-53,
-29,
23,
-112,
125,
-52,
106,
88,
66,
51,
-101,
-18,
-110
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's August 2, 2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G). | [
-112,
120,
-52,
-52,
-120,
96,
3,
54,
65,
-77,
103,
115,
-81,
-77,
-108,
127,
-49,
95,
113,
89,
-18,
-77,
82,
73,
115,
-45,
-46,
87,
117,
-18,
116,
63,
76,
-24,
-102,
-107,
68,
-56,
-23,
94,
-114,
-125,
25,
-59,
-47,
-120,
48,
35,
22,
15,
117,
-52,
-31,
44,
-102,
67,
-23,
40,
-33,
61,
-63,
80,
-101,
5,
47,
4,
-127,
52,
-104,
-91,
-8,
62,
-100,
17,
24,
-24,
113,
-74,
-121,
116,
105,
-5,
44,
113,
-29,
-128,
109,
-1,
-104,
-86,
53,
26,
-81,
-90,
-102,
24,
-21,
35,
-110,
-3,
116,
54,
46,
60,
14,
-107,
93,
-4,
70,
-86,
-96,
-77,
28,
126,
-88,
-31,
-5,
-109,
18,
48,
-51,
-79,
28,
70,
17,
-21,
-10,
48
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the time for filing their answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer submitted on August 29, 2019, is accepted as timely filed. | [
116,
112,
-4,
12,
40,
97,
49,
-100,
97,
-45,
39,
83,
-91,
-38,
20,
123,
-53,
111,
-41,
-5,
-55,
-73,
55,
-39,
51,
-13,
-45,
93,
124,
126,
-12,
-3,
76,
-48,
-118,
-44,
-58,
-56,
-55,
28,
-58,
15,
-103,
-20,
-47,
88,
40,
33,
26,
11,
49,
86,
-29,
110,
25,
67,
-24,
105,
-39,
37,
-127,
-48,
-126,
-115,
-1,
52,
-127,
-91,
-98,
-90,
112,
46,
-128,
57,
8,
-24,
82,
-74,
-45,
116,
107,
-69,
8,
98,
99,
-128,
-39,
-26,
60,
-85,
92,
90,
-113,
-26,
-109,
9,
107,
108,
-122,
61,
124,
20,
37,
62,
110,
-60,
60,
47,
-118,
-54,
-90,
-73,
-97,
108,
28,
-118,
-29,
-123,
48,
96,
-23,
-18,
92,
71,
59,
121,
-54,
-72
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees.
Appellant is not required to pay an initial partial fee. However, for this application to proceed, within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall submit a copy of this order and refile the copy of the pleadings returned with this order . By doing this, appellant becomes responsible to pay the $375.00 filing fee. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this application.
If appellant timely refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in the amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to appellant's account until the payments equal the balance due of $375.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.
Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8), appellant shall not file a new civil action or appeal in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.
The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to appellant and return a copy of appellant's pleadings with this order. | [
80,
-16,
-19,
-36,
11,
97,
11,
-98,
82,
-45,
102,
87,
-25,
70,
4,
127,
-29,
123,
117,
121,
111,
-77,
103,
67,
-78,
-13,
-63,
-43,
-77,
111,
-20,
-74,
8,
-23,
-86,
-108,
70,
-126,
-95,
92,
14,
-125,
-103,
-31,
-31,
67,
32,
97,
2,
14,
49,
70,
-29,
44,
57,
73,
8,
108,
-103,
41,
-64,
-93,
-77,
-115,
123,
12,
-96,
20,
29,
-60,
80,
62,
-104,
53,
16,
-24,
50,
54,
-122,
116,
74,
-69,
-87,
104,
-30,
1,
-31,
-4,
-107,
-80,
31,
90,
-99,
-89,
-45,
-8,
75,
108,
-74,
61,
116,
-112,
7,
126,
68,
4,
117,
44,
-125,
-50,
-44,
-77,
-113,
124,
-116,
-126,
-17,
21,
-16,
113,
-50,
-14,
88,
-50,
57,
-37,
-2,
-104
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the time for filing their brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before October 21, 2019. | [
-12,
113,
-4,
-52,
42,
96,
49,
-66,
100,
-39,
38,
19,
-73,
-54,
20,
127,
-49,
107,
-59,
-13,
-51,
-73,
103,
89,
118,
-13,
-45,
95,
120,
111,
-74,
-1,
12,
116,
-54,
84,
-58,
-56,
-119,
28,
-42,
43,
-103,
-32,
-63,
106,
32,
57,
88,
15,
49,
86,
-29,
111,
27,
103,
-24,
104,
-39,
53,
-64,
-32,
-101,
5,
-1,
55,
-127,
-92,
30,
-122,
64,
-82,
-128,
53,
8,
-23,
18,
-106,
-110,
116,
107,
59,
-120,
66,
98,
-128,
-47,
-18,
-104,
-94,
84,
90,
-113,
-26,
19,
41,
-54,
-84,
-74,
61,
60,
16,
-81,
126,
110,
-124,
54,
44,
10,
-58,
-58,
-93,
-97,
90,
28,
-118,
-13,
-121,
48,
96,
-23,
100,
24,
78,
25,
123,
-62,
-71
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the time for filing its supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before October 3, 2019. | [
-12,
112,
-76,
-52,
41,
33,
49,
-66,
101,
-37,
39,
19,
-73,
-54,
20,
125,
-17,
107,
-57,
-45,
-57,
-93,
103,
72,
-10,
-13,
-45,
95,
112,
126,
-10,
-66,
76,
48,
-54,
21,
70,
-56,
-119,
28,
-58,
-85,
-103,
-32,
-47,
106,
40,
57,
88,
11,
49,
86,
-16,
107,
26,
69,
-88,
104,
-40,
53,
-62,
-32,
-109,
5,
-17,
22,
-127,
-92,
30,
-122,
64,
-114,
-128,
61,
24,
-23,
50,
-106,
-42,
116,
107,
-69,
-120,
98,
99,
0,
-40,
-18,
-100,
-70,
92,
88,
-113,
-10,
51,
9,
-22,
40,
-90,
61,
60,
20,
-89,
126,
110,
-124,
60,
-84,
11,
-114,
-106,
-77,
31,
120,
12,
-117,
-29,
-121,
16,
96,
-55,
108,
28,
94,
59,
-5,
-62,
-119
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time for filing his supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief submitted on August 30, 2019, is accepted as timely filed. | [
116,
112,
-68,
-35,
43,
33,
57,
-66,
97,
-37,
103,
83,
-9,
-54,
20,
121,
-49,
107,
69,
-45,
-3,
-93,
102,
89,
118,
-13,
-45,
-41,
120,
126,
-10,
-1,
76,
-80,
-118,
85,
70,
-56,
-127,
-100,
-18,
9,
-119,
-32,
-47,
104,
32,
25,
90,
11,
49,
78,
-13,
42,
27,
69,
-88,
104,
88,
53,
-63,
-64,
-109,
-123,
-19,
22,
-127,
-92,
-98,
-58,
72,
-66,
-120,
61,
24,
-55,
114,
-106,
-106,
116,
107,
-5,
-128,
98,
98,
-126,
-40,
-9,
-100,
-88,
92,
90,
-113,
-26,
-109,
9,
107,
40,
-74,
61,
60,
20,
47,
126,
110,
-124,
56,
124,
10,
-34,
-122,
-77,
29,
64,
12,
-117,
-13,
-123,
16,
96,
-55,
-18,
28,
94,
25,
-5,
-62,
-72
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the time for filing their supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before September 9, 2019. | [
116,
112,
-76,
-52,
43,
33,
57,
-66,
-27,
-5,
38,
83,
-11,
-54,
4,
127,
-17,
107,
71,
-45,
-1,
-89,
102,
88,
124,
-13,
-45,
87,
116,
127,
-10,
-97,
12,
48,
-118,
85,
-58,
-56,
-119,
28,
-114,
9,
-103,
-32,
-47,
106,
40,
121,
88,
15,
49,
70,
-30,
105,
25,
77,
-88,
104,
-39,
53,
-61,
-64,
-109,
-123,
-1,
22,
-127,
-27,
30,
-58,
72,
-65,
8,
61,
8,
-23,
50,
-106,
-46,
116,
123,
-5,
-120,
98,
98,
-128,
-40,
-18,
-100,
-86,
84,
90,
-113,
-26,
-77,
41,
-53,
-88,
-74,
61,
60,
20,
47,
126,
111,
-124,
60,
-84,
10,
-50,
-58,
-93,
-97,
90,
12,
-117,
-13,
-122,
16,
96,
-55,
-18,
88,
94,
25,
123,
-62,
-71
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of Truck Renting and Leasing Association to extend the time for filing a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief will be accepted for filing if submitted on or before September 17, 2019. | [
118,
113,
108,
76,
10,
65,
48,
-68,
69,
-21,
38,
19,
-91,
-50,
20,
83,
-17,
109,
103,
-57,
-17,
-73,
101,
64,
65,
-13,
-13,
-33,
-8,
127,
-12,
94,
8,
117,
-54,
21,
-58,
-56,
-119,
30,
-34,
45,
-103,
-32,
-15,
73,
32,
56,
82,
14,
57,
70,
-31,
44,
25,
69,
-88,
104,
-35,
101,
-45,
113,
-45,
-116,
127,
22,
-127,
36,
-100,
-123,
112,
31,
-128,
49,
40,
-24,
48,
-74,
-35,
116,
43,
-69,
8,
34,
99,
-126,
85,
-9,
-36,
-78,
92,
90,
-113,
-58,
-69,
57,
26,
-24,
-74,
21,
125,
16,
60,
126,
110,
-107,
18,
108,
-114,
-17,
-10,
-95,
31,
-30,
-108,
8,
-5,
-121,
48,
98,
-119,
-2,
92,
79,
27,
123,
-62,
-80
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of Kickham Hanley, PLLC, to file a brief amicus curiae in support of the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on September 3, 2019, is accepted for filing. | [
-12,
-8,
118,
76,
8,
96,
49,
-66,
97,
-5,
103,
115,
-73,
-102,
20,
119,
-17,
45,
-57,
-5,
-21,
-65,
119,
-63,
-78,
-13,
-37,
-33,
-8,
100,
-73,
30,
76,
-31,
-118,
4,
-58,
-54,
-55,
22,
-114,
45,
-85,
-32,
-15,
75,
-96,
-69,
22,
31,
49,
-34,
-31,
44,
60,
-59,
-24,
40,
-39,
4,
-48,
-112,
-117,
-116,
125,
52,
-125,
38,
-97,
-90,
112,
126,
-120,
57,
9,
-20,
48,
-74,
-110,
52,
105,
-5,
0,
97,
98,
-109,
17,
-25,
-71,
-86,
70,
90,
-115,
-26,
-7,
41,
90,
-24,
-114,
-65,
125,
16,
45,
126,
79,
-59,
30,
44,
-120,
-50,
-122,
-89,
-97,
24,
4,
10,
-29,
4,
34,
97,
-124,
106,
124,
-58,
57,
83,
-18,
-112
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant to file a response to the brief amicus curiae submitted by the Michigan Self-Insurers Association is GRANTED. | [
-12,
112,
-12,
-83,
8,
96,
48,
-66,
103,
-47,
-89,
115,
61,
-50,
-106,
87,
-1,
123,
-61,
115,
-9,
-93,
87,
-22,
-11,
-14,
-13,
85,
-32,
126,
-18,
59,
76,
-63,
-118,
92,
-58,
-120,
-59,
-100,
-58,
12,
-72,
-32,
-39,
92,
-92,
41,
18,
91,
117,
71,
-29,
46,
25,
65,
-87,
40,
-8,
-75,
-47,
-80,
-117,
-113,
-9,
52,
19,
34,
-98,
-26,
112,
42,
-120,
17,
0,
-20,
22,
-90,
-58,
-76,
107,
-69,
4,
50,
99,
-109,
-47,
-18,
-68,
-6,
14,
72,
-99,
-58,
-109,
25,
8,
40,
-75,
57,
109,
16,
-121,
126,
-2,
-108,
30,
45,
15,
-113,
-74,
-89,
-33,
124,
29,
-118,
-30,
-122,
50,
116,
-64,
112,
92,
71,
31,
81,
-14,
-126
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 6, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for recusal of Judge Snow is DENIED. | [
-107,
-8,
-44,
-84,
8,
113,
-13,
12,
65,
-29,
111,
83,
-81,
-70,
24,
125,
13,
79,
117,
123,
79,
-79,
55,
64,
98,
-45,
-37,
-33,
-9,
-20,
-12,
-3,
12,
122,
-118,
-60,
70,
73,
109,
20,
-116,
7,
-40,
109,
-47,
11,
40,
-93,
30,
31,
49,
-2,
-13,
44,
-104,
99,
-56,
40,
95,
109,
-61,
80,
-108,
15,
125,
20,
-93,
20,
-98,
-125,
112,
127,
-112,
48,
4,
-8,
114,
-26,
-109,
116,
97,
-69,
8,
80,
99,
1,
12,
-17,
61,
-22,
55,
26,
-83,
-89,
-40,
57,
75,
32,
-106,
-101,
117,
18,
43,
60,
78,
-107,
124,
-84,
-64,
-50,
-92,
-77,
-34,
60,
-96,
-32,
-29,
-110,
18,
37,
-115,
120,
92,
70,
51,
91,
-58,
-80
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of Patrick Neil Kinney to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on September 5, 2019, is accepted for filing. On further order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the time for filing its brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before October 11, 2019. | [
117,
96,
-12,
76,
-120,
81,
112,
-66,
97,
-125,
36,
19,
45,
-54,
84,
113,
-57,
41,
-59,
-13,
-32,
-89,
111,
80,
-70,
-13,
-61,
95,
-4,
-2,
-28,
118,
76,
-16,
-54,
21,
70,
-54,
-55,
22,
-122,
45,
56,
-24,
-47,
77,
-96,
-15,
90,
15,
53,
78,
-15,
41,
58,
65,
-24,
40,
-39,
55,
-64,
-112,
-109,
-124,
125,
22,
-95,
-124,
63,
-60,
80,
14,
-120,
-75,
8,
-28,
48,
-90,
-42,
116,
107,
-7,
8,
96,
99,
-126,
21,
-25,
124,
-70,
84,
91,
-113,
-26,
-101,
40,
75,
104,
-73,
-65,
61,
16,
41,
126,
-82,
-59,
94,
44,
-126,
-114,
-62,
-89,
-97,
98,
12,
10,
-21,
6,
18,
99,
-51,
124,
88,
79,
57,
91,
-50,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2019 judgment 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. | [
-112,
76,
-43,
-84,
-120,
-16,
-45,
21,
65,
-89,
127,
-45,
-81,
-14,
20,
127,
-19,
15,
102,
91,
-49,
-77,
55,
64,
114,
-13,
-41,
-35,
115,
110,
-12,
58,
14,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
73,
16,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
8,
40,
35,
-98,
15,
17,
-100,
-29,
44,
25,
99,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
20,
-126,
16,
-116,
-121,
-16,
126,
-68,
49,
13,
-8,
112,
-74,
-105,
60,
105,
-69,
12,
117,
99,
-127,
76,
-18,
-76,
-87,
61,
122,
-81,
-89,
-102,
57,
-53,
113,
-110,
-71,
116,
52,
39,
124,
106,
5,
93,
-4,
-128,
-117,
-92,
-73,
-101,
60,
-80,
-23,
-21,
-102,
18,
97,
-35,
-8,
28,
78,
51,
121,
-2,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 8, 2019 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. | [
-111,
-8,
-35,
-68,
8,
96,
-61,
21,
65,
-25,
111,
-45,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
119,
91,
-33,
-73,
55,
64,
114,
-13,
-45,
95,
115,
110,
-12,
58,
14,
98,
-102,
-108,
70,
-55,
73,
24,
-114,
7,
-103,
109,
-111,
74,
40,
99,
30,
15,
17,
-68,
-29,
44,
-104,
99,
-56,
104,
-35,
41,
-63,
80,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
-114,
-121,
-48,
126,
-80,
49,
12,
-3,
112,
-90,
-105,
52,
97,
-69,
-108,
81,
99,
-127,
108,
-18,
29,
-88,
53,
90,
-81,
-94,
-102,
57,
-53,
49,
-106,
-69,
116,
22,
39,
124,
110,
13,
93,
-20,
-128,
-117,
-92,
-73,
31,
44,
-96,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
33,
-35,
120,
28,
78,
51,
89,
-58,
56
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 21, 2018 judgment 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. | [
-98,
108,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
-45,
29,
64,
-89,
103,
-45,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
118,
91,
-49,
-77,
23,
-63,
114,
-13,
-46,
95,
51,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
112,
-118,
-44,
70,
-63,
105,
-42,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
72,
0,
107,
30,
15,
17,
-106,
-29,
108,
28,
66,
-56,
104,
-39,
61,
-63,
-40,
-126,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
48,
-104,
-58,
-16,
126,
-100,
49,
9,
-19,
112,
-90,
-109,
52,
105,
-71,
-99,
113,
107,
-127,
12,
-21,
-72,
-85,
23,
120,
-81,
-90,
-110,
57,
-53,
96,
-106,
-67,
116,
54,
47,
126,
106,
13,
85,
-18,
34,
-49,
-92,
-77,
-37,
60,
32,
105,
-6,
-101,
-110,
96,
-43,
-8,
92,
76,
51,
125,
-18,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2019 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. | [
-127,
120,
-43,
-100,
40,
96,
-45,
21,
65,
-93,
111,
-45,
-83,
-70,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
103,
-37,
-49,
-75,
55,
-63,
126,
-13,
-97,
95,
113,
111,
-12,
58,
78,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-56,
73,
28,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-111,
8,
40,
3,
30,
15,
17,
-35,
-29,
44,
24,
99,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
20,
-128,
20,
-114,
-121,
-16,
126,
-72,
49,
29,
-20,
112,
-74,
-105,
52,
97,
-71,
-100,
89,
99,
-127,
108,
-17,
89,
-85,
53,
90,
-83,
-90,
-120,
57,
-53,
49,
-110,
-65,
116,
22,
39,
124,
106,
-123,
84,
-4,
-126,
-53,
-92,
-73,
-37,
44,
-80,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
97,
-35,
120,
28,
78,
51,
89,
-26,
-72
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 8, 2019 judgment 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. | [
-128,
-20,
-11,
-68,
8,
-16,
-61,
21,
65,
-89,
127,
-47,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
119,
91,
-33,
-79,
55,
65,
114,
-45,
-41,
95,
115,
110,
-12,
56,
14,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
9,
88,
-114,
7,
121,
77,
-47,
9,
40,
-29,
30,
15,
17,
-68,
-31,
44,
26,
99,
-56,
104,
-37,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
16,
-116,
-125,
-8,
62,
-68,
48,
13,
-20,
112,
-74,
-105,
52,
105,
-71,
12,
121,
99,
-127,
108,
-22,
25,
-87,
21,
122,
-81,
-93,
-102,
57,
-53,
33,
-126,
-71,
124,
118,
39,
124,
98,
5,
29,
-66,
-128,
-117,
-92,
-77,
-37,
60,
-96,
-87,
-21,
-98,
18,
33,
-99,
56,
92,
78,
51,
93,
-42,
56
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 19, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Viviano, J., did not participate due to a familial relationship with the presiding circuit court judge in this case. | [
-107,
120,
-36,
-100,
-88,
-32,
-73,
53,
64,
-77,
119,
-45,
-81,
-6,
16,
123,
13,
47,
103,
91,
-33,
-80,
55,
-63,
114,
-13,
-101,
95,
115,
111,
-26,
59,
72,
112,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
105,
24,
-114,
15,
-39,
45,
-47,
66,
56,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-66,
-13,
44,
25,
115,
-56,
104,
-39,
105,
-63,
-48,
-126,
15,
109,
20,
2,
52,
-118,
-125,
-8,
62,
-128,
49,
64,
-4,
113,
-74,
-121,
52,
105,
-69,
-115,
88,
99,
1,
108,
-17,
121,
-86,
61,
58,
-99,
-89,
-38,
89,
107,
2,
-106,
-65,
124,
118,
47,
124,
110,
-123,
80,
-84,
-128,
-113,
-92,
-77,
-98,
-4,
-96,
-126,
-21,
26,
26,
97,
-35,
56,
92,
74,
51,
89,
-2,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the motion to hold the defendant's application for leave to appeal in abeyance for Jawad A. Shah, M.D., P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. --- Mich. ---, 932 N.W.2d 2 (2019) (Docket No. 157951) is considered, and it is GRANTED. We ORDER that the application for leave to appeal the March 19, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in Shah . | [
-11,
-7,
93,
12,
42,
96,
19,
-97,
121,
-61,
39,
83,
-91,
-14,
-108,
59,
-65,
55,
97,
95,
-37,
-77,
87,
-127,
-25,
-5,
-37,
-33,
-69,
79,
-20,
-5,
8,
-96,
-118,
-44,
68,
-51,
77,
92,
-58,
5,
-5,
108,
-47,
-47,
40,
107,
22,
10,
49,
71,
-62,
46,
27,
65,
-24,
40,
-37,
37,
-63,
-16,
-70,
12,
119,
4,
-93,
32,
24,
-121,
-40,
127,
-116,
57,
13,
-7,
114,
-74,
-121,
52,
107,
-7,
32,
3,
102,
-127,
85,
-17,
-35,
-8,
12,
-50,
29,
-58,
-39,
89,
-55,
-88,
-106,
-71,
114,
18,
-82,
-68,
-17,
5,
23,
-20,
4,
-53,
-96,
-77,
-49,
117,
-106,
-63,
-29,
7,
50,
97,
-116,
58,
92,
71,
123,
113,
-42,
-108
] |
By order of October 2, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the April 12, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v. Ames (Docket No. 156077). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been denied in People v. Ames on June 26, 2019, 504 Mich. ----, 929 N.W.2d 283 (2019), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-44,
104,
125,
-68,
40,
-31,
82,
-105,
65,
-121,
47,
83,
-81,
-14,
20,
127,
29,
47,
113,
91,
-54,
-89,
71,
-31,
118,
-45,
91,
-33,
115,
110,
-12,
120,
78,
112,
-118,
-44,
70,
73,
-55,
28,
-122,
-123,
-71,
73,
-111,
-62,
60,
-85,
24,
15,
17,
-74,
-15,
46,
24,
-61,
-24,
40,
-37,
-65,
69,
-16,
-70,
15,
-1,
52,
-95,
20,
-118,
-121,
-32,
62,
-112,
49,
21,
-20,
49,
-74,
-109,
62,
75,
-69,
61,
105,
99,
-127,
-100,
-17,
-7,
-72,
28,
-6,
-97,
-90,
-48,
25,
107,
97,
-124,
-65,
116,
54,
38,
126,
110,
13,
20,
124,
-126,
-49,
-90,
-79,
-113,
124,
-92,
-125,
-21,
5,
50,
97,
-35,
40,
92,
6,
51,
99,
-18,
-104
] |
By order of December 19, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v. Ames (Docket No. 156077 ). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on June 26, 2019, 504 Mich. ----, 929 N.W.2d 283 (2019), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-44,
104,
124,
-68,
56,
-31,
19,
-105,
65,
-25,
43,
83,
-81,
-46,
16,
127,
29,
47,
113,
123,
-37,
-89,
87,
65,
118,
-45,
-37,
-33,
115,
110,
-12,
120,
78,
112,
-118,
-43,
70,
65,
73,
88,
-114,
-121,
-69,
73,
-47,
-62,
60,
-93,
26,
14,
17,
-74,
-15,
44,
24,
-61,
-24,
40,
-37,
-65,
-63,
-15,
-70,
13,
-33,
20,
-125,
20,
-118,
-122,
-24,
62,
-112,
49,
21,
-20,
113,
-74,
-109,
126,
73,
-71,
61,
-31,
35,
-127,
28,
-17,
-7,
-72,
-100,
122,
-97,
-90,
-40,
25,
107,
41,
-108,
-65,
116,
54,
38,
126,
110,
-124,
20,
124,
-126,
-49,
-92,
-79,
-113,
60,
-94,
-125,
-21,
7,
50,
97,
-100,
24,
84,
68,
51,
123,
-58,
-112
] |
By order of May 1, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v. Ames (Docket No. 156077). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been denied in Ames on June 26, 2019, 504 Mich. ---, 929 N.W.2d 283 (2019), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-44,
104,
-3,
-68,
40,
-31,
83,
-107,
65,
-25,
111,
83,
-81,
-14,
17,
127,
29,
47,
113,
91,
-53,
-89,
115,
-31,
118,
-77,
-37,
-33,
115,
110,
-10,
120,
78,
112,
-118,
-108,
-58,
-55,
73,
92,
-114,
-123,
-71,
73,
-111,
66,
60,
-85,
26,
15,
17,
-74,
-15,
44,
24,
-61,
-24,
40,
-37,
-69,
-59,
-48,
-70,
15,
127,
52,
-96,
20,
-114,
-122,
-32,
126,
-112,
49,
28,
-20,
49,
-74,
-105,
62,
75,
-7,
52,
97,
35,
-127,
-100,
-17,
-8,
-88,
28,
122,
-97,
-90,
-40,
25,
107,
33,
-108,
-65,
116,
54,
38,
126,
110,
12,
20,
124,
-126,
-53,
-92,
-79,
-97,
124,
36,
-125,
-21,
5,
50,
97,
-35,
56,
92,
4,
51,
123,
-26,
-112
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-111,
-52,
-43,
-68,
-120,
-16,
-45,
21,
65,
-89,
119,
-45,
45,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
101,
-37,
77,
-77,
23,
65,
114,
-13,
-45,
-35,
115,
110,
-12,
56,
78,
-30,
-102,
-44,
70,
-64,
73,
-104,
-114,
7,
89,
77,
-15,
80,
40,
-29,
62,
15,
17,
-99,
-93,
44,
26,
99,
-56,
104,
-37,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
20,
-114,
-57,
-48,
62,
-76,
48,
13,
-12,
113,
-74,
-105,
52,
105,
-69,
-116,
93,
99,
-127,
108,
-26,
-8,
-87,
21,
122,
-83,
-89,
-102,
57,
-53,
33,
-122,
-67,
124,
84,
47,
-4,
106,
5,
93,
-2,
-128,
-53,
-92,
-77,
-37,
60,
-80,
-87,
-21,
-102,
58,
32,
-99,
120,
92,
78,
55,
89,
-2,
56
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 20, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant's motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). | [
-110,
-16,
-4,
-68,
-118,
112,
-77,
60,
65,
-41,
103,
81,
-17,
-70,
4,
127,
15,
79,
117,
-5,
-7,
-79,
55,
81,
115,
-45,
-110,
-33,
55,
-17,
-28,
56,
76,
-32,
-118,
-44,
70,
-56,
105,
24,
-114,
71,
25,
-19,
-15,
9,
56,
107,
30,
15,
49,
-34,
-29,
47,
29,
96,
-23,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-109,
-115,
47,
20,
-128,
20,
-114,
-90,
-16,
127,
-76,
49,
17,
-24,
118,
-74,
-105,
52,
97,
-69,
40,
48,
66,
-127,
93,
-17,
25,
-24,
13,
94,
-113,
-90,
-38,
24,
107,
-95,
-106,
-79,
117,
18,
44,
124,
70,
-108,
53,
-84,
-62,
-53,
-96,
-77,
-97,
124,
-96,
-95,
-22,
-109,
50,
37,
-115,
-8,
92,
78,
51,
91,
-2,
-16
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 27, 2019 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. | [
-111,
104,
-44,
-100,
40,
112,
-13,
21,
65,
-89,
111,
-45,
-83,
-70,
20,
127,
-99,
15,
117,
91,
-33,
-75,
55,
65,
122,
-13,
-105,
-33,
-15,
110,
-26,
56,
14,
112,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
73,
28,
-114,
7,
-39,
109,
-47,
72,
40,
-93,
30,
15,
17,
-36,
-29,
44,
24,
115,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
20,
-128,
20,
-97,
-126,
-16,
119,
-104,
49,
13,
-20,
112,
-26,
-105,
52,
105,
-71,
-108,
89,
99,
-127,
108,
-18,
89,
-21,
53,
90,
-81,
-90,
-118,
25,
-53,
32,
-110,
-69,
116,
50,
47,
124,
107,
5,
29,
-84,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-77,
31,
60,
-88,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
33,
-51,
120,
28,
78,
51,
81,
-58,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 7, 2019 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. | [
-112,
-8,
-44,
-68,
40,
112,
-13,
21,
65,
-89,
111,
-45,
-83,
-70,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
103,
-37,
-33,
-77,
119,
-63,
126,
-13,
-101,
95,
119,
126,
-28,
58,
78,
96,
-102,
-44,
70,
-56,
73,
24,
-114,
7,
-39,
109,
-47,
72,
40,
-93,
30,
15,
17,
-36,
-31,
44,
-104,
113,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
20,
-128,
20,
29,
-57,
-16,
126,
-104,
49,
12,
-4,
112,
-26,
-105,
52,
105,
-71,
-116,
89,
99,
-127,
44,
-18,
89,
-24,
53,
90,
-81,
-89,
-102,
57,
-53,
33,
-110,
-69,
117,
50,
39,
124,
106,
-123,
77,
-68,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-73,
-97,
60,
-96,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
33,
-51,
120,
28,
78,
51,
89,
-26,
-80
] |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.