text
stringlengths 12
234k
| embeddings
sequencelengths 128
128
|
|---|---|
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 27, 2017 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. | [
-107,
104,
-33,
-84,
-88,
-32,
-13,
29,
65,
-89,
47,
-45,
-81,
-46,
-108,
127,
-99,
15,
117,
91,
-49,
-77,
87,
-64,
114,
-13,
-33,
94,
-15,
111,
-10,
56,
10,
112,
-102,
-108,
70,
-55,
107,
88,
-116,
7,
-103,
77,
-47,
10,
56,
35,
94,
15,
17,
-76,
99,
108,
28,
98,
-56,
104,
-37,
45,
-63,
-64,
-110,
15,
123,
4,
-126,
52,
-101,
-59,
-48,
126,
-112,
16,
13,
-24,
112,
-74,
-105,
52,
107,
-71,
-120,
81,
71,
1,
108,
-21,
-40,
-85,
55,
122,
-65,
-89,
-110,
24,
-21,
33,
-110,
-69,
116,
18,
47,
124,
110,
69,
71,
-18,
34,
-53,
-90,
-77,
27,
124,
-72,
-95,
-6,
-105,
18,
113,
-35,
112,
30,
108,
55,
47,
-26,
-104
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 30, 2017 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 motions for appointment of counsel, for funds to hire a private investigator, to expand the record, and to remand are DENIED. | [
-112,
-16,
-4,
-84,
-118,
112,
-78,
60,
65,
-61,
119,
83,
-81,
-6,
0,
127,
-70,
79,
117,
-5,
73,
-73,
23,
64,
114,
-45,
-110,
-33,
-11,
-49,
-28,
-79,
76,
-16,
10,
-43,
70,
-119,
-31,
112,
-114,
69,
-72,
-19,
-7,
11,
48,
3,
30,
15,
49,
94,
99,
46,
29,
96,
-23,
104,
-37,
45,
-47,
-47,
-93,
13,
45,
52,
-128,
48,
-120,
71,
-16,
126,
116,
49,
1,
-23,
51,
-74,
-105,
116,
66,
-69,
40,
32,
-62,
-127,
-55,
-17,
28,
-88,
13,
26,
-100,
-89,
-38,
25,
105,
35,
-106,
-1,
117,
16,
44,
124,
78,
-115,
61,
44,
-54,
-49,
-60,
-79,
-101,
125,
-88,
-61,
-22,
-105,
16,
49,
-51,
-8,
92,
74,
51,
31,
-82,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2017 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,
-35,
-84,
-88,
-32,
-13,
29,
64,
-89,
111,
-45,
-81,
-14,
-108,
127,
-99,
15,
116,
91,
79,
-77,
83,
-64,
114,
-13,
-33,
-34,
-13,
111,
-12,
56,
14,
96,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
105,
-40,
-116,
7,
-71,
77,
-47,
2,
56,
35,
94,
15,
17,
-76,
99,
44,
24,
98,
-56,
104,
-37,
45,
-63,
-48,
50,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
48,
-101,
-123,
-48,
126,
-112,
49,
13,
-24,
112,
-74,
-105,
52,
105,
-69,
-120,
49,
71,
1,
108,
-21,
56,
-86,
47,
42,
-65,
-89,
-112,
25,
-53,
33,
-110,
-69,
117,
22,
47,
124,
110,
-59,
71,
-2,
32,
-53,
-90,
-79,
31,
124,
40,
-118,
-14,
-105,
18,
49,
-35,
-16,
28,
76,
55,
125,
-26,
-104
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the March 30, 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). | [
-110,
-16,
-4,
-84,
-118,
112,
-77,
-100,
65,
-57,
39,
83,
-81,
-6,
-124,
127,
43,
75,
117,
-5,
89,
-93,
23,
81,
-14,
-45,
-110,
93,
-73,
-17,
-28,
49,
76,
-16,
-118,
-44,
70,
-56,
105,
16,
-114,
71,
-72,
-19,
-15,
11,
56,
11,
30,
15,
49,
-34,
-29,
46,
25,
96,
-23,
41,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-125,
-115,
111,
20,
-96,
48,
-116,
-90,
-16,
126,
52,
49,
17,
-24,
52,
-74,
-105,
52,
97,
-5,
40,
33,
98,
-127,
77,
-17,
25,
-88,
13,
94,
-115,
-90,
-37,
24,
105,
35,
-106,
-71,
117,
22,
44,
126,
78,
-123,
85,
44,
-54,
-49,
-92,
-77,
-97,
125,
-96,
-61,
-22,
-109,
18,
33,
-115,
-70,
92,
78,
51,
95,
-2,
-16
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 22, 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. | [
-108,
104,
-35,
-68,
-120,
-32,
115,
29,
65,
-89,
111,
-45,
-83,
-38,
-108,
127,
-99,
15,
119,
123,
-53,
-79,
87,
65,
114,
-45,
-37,
93,
-77,
110,
-12,
120,
14,
96,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
105,
16,
-114,
7,
-39,
-51,
-47,
8,
48,
99,
62,
15,
17,
-100,
-29,
44,
26,
98,
-56,
40,
-37,
-67,
-47,
-48,
-106,
15,
125,
4,
-127,
52,
24,
-61,
-40,
119,
-104,
49,
5,
-20,
112,
-90,
-107,
116,
105,
-69,
13,
113,
107,
-127,
12,
-18,
-3,
-22,
39,
122,
-67,
-90,
-110,
57,
-21,
32,
-122,
-71,
116,
86,
47,
124,
-54,
5,
-35,
-66,
-94,
-49,
38,
-73,
-33,
60,
-72,
-23,
-21,
-110,
18,
33,
-51,
-8,
92,
68,
51,
125,
-10,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's May 1, 2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. The motion to add issue is DENIED, without prejudice to the defendant raising the issue in a motion for relief from judgment under MCR Subchapter 6.500. | [
-110,
-8,
-20,
-116,
-118,
32,
33,
63,
65,
-61,
119,
83,
-83,
-38,
-128,
127,
-22,
95,
83,
123,
78,
-77,
7,
97,
115,
-110,
-110,
95,
-79,
-49,
-28,
54,
76,
-14,
-38,
-43,
70,
-62,
-95,
86,
-114,
1,
24,
-19,
-15,
10,
48,
35,
30,
31,
49,
-50,
-13,
44,
31,
67,
-23,
40,
-35,
57,
-63,
88,
-87,
5,
127,
36,
33,
52,
-100,
65,
88,
126,
-112,
49,
16,
-24,
115,
54,
-121,
116,
105,
-5,
44,
33,
-26,
-127,
77,
-17,
-103,
-72,
53,
14,
-116,
-90,
-37,
0,
73,
39,
-106,
-3,
116,
22,
36,
62,
-49,
-107,
85,
-20,
66,
-29,
-76,
-79,
31,
124,
40,
-31,
-5,
-110,
16,
48,
-51,
-6,
94,
74,
19,
-37,
-17,
-112
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 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, which shall hold this case in abeyance pending its decision in People v. Arnold (On Remand) (Court of Appeals Docket No. 325407). After Arnold is decided, the Court of Appeals shall determine whether its Arnold opinion controls in this case and, if it does, reconsider this case in light of Arnold .
We do not retain jurisdiction. | [
-48,
-8,
-35,
-84,
58,
97,
87,
-79,
65,
-105,
103,
-45,
-65,
-14,
-124,
121,
-101,
111,
117,
-37,
-52,
-89,
70,
-63,
-9,
-13,
-5,
95,
51,
-34,
-25,
127,
92,
105,
-118,
-36,
68,
-56,
-31,
92,
-58,
-125,
-7,
109,
-47,
78,
48,
51,
88,
15,
49,
-42,
-31,
44,
25,
-62,
-55,
40,
-37,
55,
13,
89,
-118,
12,
-17,
4,
33,
54,
-99,
-57,
-16,
127,
-104,
49,
9,
-8,
50,
-76,
-105,
20,
67,
-5,
40,
65,
99,
-127,
-3,
-17,
-103,
-72,
61,
106,
-99,
-27,
-103,
25,
-24,
97,
-122,
-65,
20,
54,
38,
124,
111,
-123,
22,
108,
66,
-57,
-96,
-77,
-33,
120,
-66,
-126,
-29,
5,
48,
33,
-116,
-118,
84,
66,
51,
27,
-18,
-48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address: (1) whether there is a sovereign or governmental immunity defense to the failure to disclose public records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq . ; (2) if so, whether that immunity is waived by the FOIA; (3) whether the notice and verification requirements of the Court of Claims Act, see MCL 600.6431(1), are applicable to a FOIA appeal; (4) if so, whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the plaintiff's failure to follow the verification requirement in its original complaint, which was filed within one year after the FOIA claim accrued, MCL 600.6431(1), rendered the complaint "invalid from its inception" and incapable of amendment; and (5) whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the verified amended complaint, also filed within the one-year period, could not "relate back" to the date of the original complaint for purposes of compliance with the 180-day limitations period of the FOIA. | [
-76,
124,
-35,
-68,
40,
97,
50,
-66,
65,
-121,
-81,
83,
-83,
82,
-124,
127,
-37,
43,
99,
123,
-51,
54,
119,
-61,
-14,
-78,
-46,
84,
121,
126,
-26,
62,
72,
-16,
-118,
-59,
70,
-64,
-57,
30,
-122,
-121,
89,
-51,
-39,
72,
8,
123,
16,
15,
113,
-2,
-29,
60,
-103,
66,
-56,
40,
-39,
13,
-43,
-111,
-85,
13,
123,
16,
-127,
85,
-100,
-58,
-16,
47,
-104,
57,
1,
-7,
114,
-74,
-121,
52,
107,
-69,
57,
98,
98,
-128,
72,
-25,
-68,
-88,
39,
92,
-97,
-89,
-46,
33,
73,
108,
-122,
-99,
116,
16,
37,
-2,
-28,
-123,
95,
44,
-122,
-118,
-124,
-73,
15,
64,
-68,
27,
-17,
-109,
-110,
96,
-44,
106,
92,
74,
51,
-45,
-50,
-48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 20, 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. | [
-111,
120,
-35,
-68,
-86,
-16,
-45,
29,
65,
-89,
111,
-45,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
103,
91,
-33,
-79,
23,
64,
114,
-13,
-38,
-36,
51,
110,
-12,
56,
10,
112,
-118,
-108,
70,
-63,
77,
24,
-114,
7,
-39,
-51,
-47,
88,
40,
99,
30,
15,
17,
-107,
99,
108,
25,
99,
-56,
40,
-37,
-67,
-63,
-48,
-125,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
52,
-114,
-25,
-40,
127,
-104,
48,
9,
-20,
112,
-90,
-105,
52,
105,
-71,
12,
113,
110,
-127,
45,
-25,
56,
-22,
7,
122,
-81,
-89,
-112,
57,
-21,
33,
-126,
-65,
116,
18,
47,
124,
106,
-123,
-49,
-2,
34,
-49,
-92,
-73,
-117,
124,
-72,
-88,
-6,
-66,
50,
33,
-51,
120,
124,
78,
51,
109,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 3, 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. The Court of Appeals shall consider whether a defendant's unpreserved claim regarding his or her lack of physical presence at sentencing is subject to review for plain error. See People v. Heller, 316 Mich.App. 314, 891 N.W.2d 541 (2016). We direct the Court of Appeals' attention to the fact that it currently has before it the case of People v. Enciso, --- Mich. ----, 920 N.W.2d 565 (2018), a case we remanded as on leave granted on December 19, 2018. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-112,
-24,
-36,
-67,
40,
97,
115,
-68,
97,
-45,
55,
83,
-81,
-14,
-108,
121,
125,
111,
117,
-5,
-37,
-93,
7,
65,
118,
-13,
-109,
95,
55,
110,
-26,
-6,
76,
96,
10,
-44,
70,
-64,
-53,
92,
-114,
5,
-7,
-51,
-47,
0,
48,
115,
-36,
15,
49,
-42,
-29,
46,
24,
-61,
-88,
40,
91,
47,
-63,
88,
-78,
13,
-17,
52,
-127,
20,
29,
-89,
-16,
63,
-104,
17,
21,
-8,
112,
-10,
-125,
52,
99,
-69,
-96,
103,
-29,
-111,
92,
-26,
-71,
-72,
61,
122,
-99,
-27,
-104,
81,
75,
97,
-126,
-69,
124,
54,
46,
124,
78,
5,
28,
108,
-126,
-113,
-92,
-79,
-113,
124,
-92,
-30,
-29,
7,
18,
97,
-36,
56,
92,
70,
51,
75,
-2,
-112
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 18, 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. | [
-104,
124,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-16,
-61,
29,
65,
-81,
111,
-45,
-83,
-14,
20,
127,
-19,
15,
102,
91,
-33,
-79,
55,
64,
114,
-15,
-98,
-36,
119,
110,
-12,
120,
10,
112,
-102,
-108,
70,
-55,
73,
-104,
-116,
7,
-39,
-51,
-47,
89,
40,
98,
30,
15,
17,
-108,
99,
108,
25,
99,
-56,
104,
-37,
-83,
-63,
-48,
-125,
13,
125,
4,
-128,
52,
-113,
-25,
-48,
127,
-72,
48,
13,
-20,
112,
-90,
-109,
116,
105,
-69,
12,
113,
107,
-127,
109,
-25,
57,
-22,
15,
122,
-65,
-89,
-112,
57,
-21,
-31,
-110,
-71,
116,
16,
47,
124,
106,
-123,
-49,
-2,
2,
-53,
-92,
-75,
-117,
124,
-72,
-23,
-21,
-66,
18,
33,
-99,
-8,
92,
76,
51,
125,
-10,
-72
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 7, 2017 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,
104,
-35,
-84,
-88,
-32,
-13,
29,
65,
-73,
119,
-47,
-83,
-14,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
119,
-37,
-33,
-77,
23,
-64,
122,
-13,
-102,
95,
-11,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
96,
-102,
-108,
70,
-55,
-21,
88,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
24,
56,
35,
30,
15,
17,
53,
-29,
44,
-104,
97,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-47,
89,
-94,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
48,
-101,
-27,
-16,
126,
-104,
16,
0,
-19,
112,
-26,
-105,
124,
105,
-71,
-120,
49,
67,
-127,
108,
-21,
124,
-86,
37,
122,
-67,
38,
-46,
25,
107,
33,
-110,
-71,
117,
48,
47,
124,
106,
-51,
79,
-2,
-94,
-53,
-92,
-77,
31,
124,
-72,
-87,
-6,
-106,
18,
33,
-35,
-72,
30,
78,
51,
57,
-26,
-72
] |
On order of the Court, the motion to supplement application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the July 24, 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. | [
-108,
120,
-36,
-116,
-118,
-32,
115,
53,
64,
-25,
103,
83,
-89,
-38,
4,
125,
-115,
15,
119,
-5,
-53,
-77,
23,
73,
-14,
-45,
-37,
93,
-15,
110,
-12,
56,
78,
98,
-118,
-108,
68,
-55,
-55,
16,
-114,
15,
-39,
-19,
-47,
72,
40,
99,
62,
15,
49,
-34,
-29,
108,
-104,
66,
-24,
40,
-39,
53,
-63,
-112,
-126,
15,
-23,
16,
-127,
52,
-117,
-58,
112,
-65,
-112,
49,
25,
-23,
48,
-90,
-109,
52,
107,
-69,
12,
113,
99,
-128,
28,
-17,
24,
-86,
21,
120,
-113,
38,
-48,
25,
75,
32,
-106,
-83,
52,
52,
39,
126,
111,
-115,
85,
45,
2,
-33,
-92,
-73,
91,
60,
-96,
-87,
-13,
-65,
18,
97,
-115,
104,
28,
78,
51,
121,
-10,
-78
] |
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 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 application for leave to appeal the May 22, 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. | [
-107,
104,
-35,
-84,
-88,
-32,
-13,
29,
65,
-25,
111,
-45,
-83,
-46,
-108,
127,
-83,
15,
119,
91,
-49,
-77,
55,
72,
122,
-45,
-101,
93,
51,
110,
-28,
122,
14,
96,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
75,
80,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-111,
8,
16,
99,
62,
15,
17,
-108,
-29,
44,
30,
98,
-56,
104,
-37,
45,
-63,
-48,
-78,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
11,
-61,
64,
126,
-72,
49,
12,
-4,
112,
-90,
-107,
54,
105,
-69,
-99,
113,
79,
-125,
76,
-21,
93,
-86,
61,
74,
-83,
38,
-104,
57,
-21,
48,
22,
-65,
116,
22,
39,
126,
111,
13,
95,
-18,
-94,
-57,
-90,
-73,
95,
60,
-72,
-23,
-22,
-110,
18,
33,
-51,
-8,
28,
76,
55,
89,
-26,
56
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 10, 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. | [
-103,
-4,
-35,
-84,
-118,
-32,
-29,
29,
64,
-25,
127,
-45,
-81,
-46,
-124,
127,
-84,
15,
118,
-37,
-33,
-77,
55,
-24,
114,
-45,
-37,
-35,
51,
110,
-12,
56,
14,
-30,
-118,
-108,
70,
-63,
75,
80,
-114,
7,
-103,
-115,
-111,
64,
40,
99,
30,
15,
17,
-108,
-29,
44,
-102,
98,
-56,
44,
-37,
41,
-63,
-40,
-122,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
4,
-98,
-29,
88,
126,
-72,
17,
0,
-4,
112,
54,
-109,
54,
105,
-69,
13,
113,
111,
-127,
76,
-29,
60,
-85,
29,
122,
-83,
38,
-102,
57,
-53,
32,
22,
-67,
124,
20,
39,
126,
110,
29,
77,
-18,
0,
79,
-90,
-75,
27,
124,
-72,
105,
-21,
-74,
-110,
33,
-43,
120,
92,
78,
55,
93,
-18,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 9, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of People v. Dixon-Bey (Docket No. 156746) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case. | [
-48,
120,
-4,
-116,
42,
-31,
51,
-73,
81,
-109,
53,
83,
-83,
-46,
20,
121,
27,
111,
97,
123,
-37,
55,
22,
-63,
98,
-13,
-101,
94,
51,
71,
-27,
-2,
10,
96,
-118,
-48,
70,
-56,
-23,
28,
-50,
7,
-33,
105,
81,
3,
40,
59,
24,
14,
49,
118,
-31,
108,
25,
67,
-24,
40,
-39,
60,
81,
96,
-118,
15,
-1,
4,
-128,
4,
31,
-121,
-48,
127,
-108,
49,
4,
-24,
115,
-90,
-125,
52,
97,
-5,
17,
33,
98,
-127,
8,
-17,
-99,
-88,
61,
-38,
-99,
-26,
-72,
57,
-23,
96,
-106,
-99,
116,
20,
39,
124,
74,
-115,
86,
-84,
-120,
-49,
-92,
-77,
-98,
52,
-102,
-117,
-29,
19,
50,
97,
-36,
42,
92,
66,
51,
91,
-18,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's October 2, 2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. | [
-111,
105,
-20,
-115,
-120,
-96,
33,
-73,
-123,
-125,
111,
115,
-85,
-13,
-108,
127,
-66,
79,
112,
88,
79,
-77,
87,
-23,
118,
-45,
-50,
87,
113,
-19,
116,
-70,
14,
-32,
-38,
-107,
100,
-64,
-21,
-34,
-122,
-91,
25,
-59,
-47,
11,
16,
35,
94,
15,
113,
-60,
-31,
46,
24,
67,
-23,
40,
91,
45,
-63,
-39,
-100,
7,
111,
4,
-127,
52,
-102,
-27,
-24,
62,
-108,
25,
17,
-22,
113,
118,
-97,
116,
105,
-5,
-120,
97,
-85,
-127,
109,
-18,
-104,
-70,
37,
42,
45,
-90,
-109,
16,
-54,
39,
-110,
-67,
52,
22,
46,
126,
14,
-123,
93,
110,
2,
-81,
-76,
-77,
28,
124,
40,
97,
-5,
-112,
-110,
48,
-35,
-12,
94,
82,
25,
-5,
-26,
-100
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 10, 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,
120,
-35,
-84,
-88,
-31,
-13,
61,
65,
-89,
103,
-45,
-81,
-14,
-108,
127,
-115,
15,
118,
-37,
-33,
-75,
119,
73,
122,
-45,
-69,
-33,
51,
126,
-12,
56,
78,
-32,
-102,
-107,
70,
-55,
105,
-104,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
8,
40,
35,
-98,
15,
17,
-106,
99,
44,
-104,
99,
-56,
40,
-39,
61,
-63,
80,
-74,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
-101,
-89,
0,
126,
-104,
49,
9,
-8,
112,
-74,
-105,
54,
97,
-69,
8,
97,
-29,
-128,
108,
-17,
60,
-86,
29,
122,
-81,
34,
-112,
25,
-21,
33,
-110,
-67,
124,
22,
45,
126,
106,
-115,
76,
-2,
-128,
-37,
-92,
-73,
31,
28,
-72,
-23,
-21,
-100,
26,
33,
-51,
56,
94,
78,
55,
93,
-26,
-80
] |
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 we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-100,
88,
-35,
-68,
-88,
-31,
-13,
61,
65,
-73,
103,
-45,
-83,
-46,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
118,
-37,
-33,
-75,
115,
89,
122,
-45,
-69,
-34,
119,
126,
-28,
58,
78,
-32,
-102,
-42,
70,
-55,
105,
-104,
-114,
7,
-35,
77,
-47,
8,
40,
35,
62,
15,
17,
-73,
-29,
108,
-100,
99,
-56,
104,
-39,
63,
-63,
80,
-78,
13,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
-101,
-89,
24,
127,
-104,
49,
13,
-20,
112,
-90,
-105,
52,
105,
-69,
24,
97,
99,
-126,
108,
-17,
88,
-86,
61,
122,
-81,
-94,
-104,
25,
-21,
97,
-110,
-71,
116,
22,
45,
126,
42,
-115,
76,
-2,
-128,
-33,
-92,
-73,
27,
28,
-72,
-87,
-21,
-98,
26,
33,
-51,
58,
124,
76,
55,
93,
-26,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 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. | [
-127,
-4,
-43,
-68,
-86,
-16,
-45,
21,
65,
-89,
119,
-47,
-81,
-6,
16,
127,
-115,
15,
101,
-37,
-33,
-79,
87,
65,
114,
-45,
-33,
-33,
-15,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
-16,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
9,
24,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
24,
40,
-29,
30,
15,
17,
-100,
99,
44,
-101,
99,
-56,
104,
-39,
61,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
20,
-126,
52,
-114,
-125,
-8,
62,
-68,
49,
21,
-19,
112,
-10,
-105,
60,
105,
-71,
-124,
117,
99,
-128,
108,
-26,
-71,
-23,
21,
122,
-81,
35,
-38,
57,
-53,
49,
-126,
-71,
124,
118,
47,
124,
106,
21,
31,
-4,
-128,
-117,
-92,
-77,
-37,
124,
-80,
105,
-21,
-102,
50,
97,
-35,
-72,
92,
78,
51,
121,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 4, 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. | [
-104,
-20,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
-45,
31,
65,
-29,
63,
-45,
-81,
-14,
-108,
127,
-68,
79,
118,
91,
-37,
-73,
23,
65,
114,
-45,
-41,
92,
113,
110,
-12,
58,
14,
-32,
-102,
-43,
70,
-63,
105,
84,
-116,
7,
-39,
-51,
-111,
-118,
0,
34,
62,
15,
17,
-12,
-29,
44,
24,
99,
-56,
40,
-37,
-84,
-63,
-47,
-76,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
52,
-98,
-29,
-40,
126,
-56,
49,
13,
-19,
112,
-74,
-111,
116,
41,
-71,
12,
117,
107,
-127,
13,
-17,
-40,
-86,
51,
122,
-65,
39,
-110,
25,
-21,
33,
-122,
-67,
124,
22,
47,
124,
106,
5,
94,
-26,
-126,
-113,
-92,
-73,
-37,
124,
-72,
-21,
-23,
-106,
18,
33,
-43,
120,
92,
78,
55,
73,
-26,
56
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 13, 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 to appeal removal of central registry and the motion to close case are DENIED. | [
-111,
112,
-36,
-68,
10,
-31,
-13,
47,
64,
-125,
47,
83,
-81,
-70,
-108,
127,
15,
7,
115,
123,
-49,
-77,
23,
9,
118,
-37,
-109,
95,
-9,
109,
-27,
62,
74,
112,
-118,
-60,
70,
-64,
-19,
24,
-124,
7,
-103,
-83,
-15,
13,
40,
43,
94,
15,
17,
-34,
-31,
44,
-100,
-31,
-22,
104,
-37,
41,
-47,
-48,
-93,
13,
125,
4,
-128,
52,
-97,
-124,
-48,
126,
-80,
17,
-112,
-7,
48,
-90,
-105,
60,
99,
123,
1,
65,
-29,
-127,
12,
-17,
-104,
-86,
13,
106,
-97,
34,
-45,
29,
75,
41,
-110,
-71,
85,
20,
39,
62,
14,
-59,
92,
44,
-122,
-49,
-92,
-77,
90,
-3,
-88,
42,
-6,
-110,
18,
49,
-35,
-8,
92,
74,
51,
35,
-18,
-16
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 12, 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. | [
-128,
120,
-43,
-100,
-118,
-32,
-13,
29,
65,
-25,
111,
-45,
-83,
-14,
20,
127,
-99,
15,
119,
-37,
-49,
-79,
23,
-55,
122,
-13,
-101,
95,
51,
110,
-28,
58,
14,
-16,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
105,
16,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
0,
8,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-108,
-29,
44,
24,
99,
-56,
104,
-37,
61,
-47,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
-118,
-121,
-48,
126,
-72,
57,
13,
-4,
112,
-74,
-105,
52,
105,
-69,
25,
113,
111,
-127,
12,
-17,
89,
-85,
61,
74,
-73,
38,
-104,
57,
-53,
113,
-110,
-65,
116,
22,
47,
60,
74,
-115,
84,
-20,
-126,
-49,
-92,
-73,
-37,
60,
-80,
-23,
-22,
-102,
18,
97,
-35,
120,
28,
78,
51,
77,
-18,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 10, 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. | [
-119,
-36,
-43,
-84,
-118,
-32,
-13,
29,
64,
-25,
127,
-45,
-81,
-14,
20,
127,
-84,
15,
118,
-37,
-49,
-77,
23,
-64,
122,
-13,
-38,
-36,
51,
110,
-12,
58,
14,
-16,
-118,
-108,
70,
-63,
105,
-112,
-114,
7,
-103,
77,
-47,
8,
40,
99,
94,
15,
17,
-106,
99,
44,
26,
99,
-56,
44,
-37,
45,
-63,
-40,
-106,
15,
109,
4,
-126,
22,
-104,
-29,
-40,
126,
-72,
49,
5,
-8,
112,
54,
-109,
52,
41,
-69,
13,
113,
111,
-127,
76,
-25,
60,
-85,
13,
122,
-67,
38,
-102,
57,
-53,
33,
-110,
-67,
116,
54,
39,
126,
106,
13,
92,
-18,
0,
95,
-92,
-73,
-101,
124,
-80,
105,
-21,
-70,
18,
97,
-59,
120,
92,
78,
55,
109,
-18,
-80
] |
Per Curiam.
Defendants appeal as of right the trial court's opinion and order denying their motion for summary disposition, sanctions, and attorney fees and, instead, granting summary disposition and awarding attorney fees and costs to plaintiffs. We affirm the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiffs and reverse the trial court's award of reasonable attorney fees and costs to Auto-Owners and Home-Owners under MCL 445.257(2).
I. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On July 3, 2014, Caleb Casanova was injured in an automotive accident. Casanova sustained a concussion, a comminuted fracture of his C2 vertebra, and various other minor injuries. Casanova was admitted to the intensive care unit of Sparrow Hospital, and defendants provided treatment to him on July 4, 2014. Compass Health submitted a bill to Home-Owners, Casanova's no-fault insurer, for $1,859. On August 5, 2014, Home-Owners submitted payment to Compass Health in the amount of $1,076.14, the amount Home-Owners determined was reasonable and necessary for the services Compass Health provided to Casanova. On August 13, 2014, Compass Health sent an invoice directly to Casanova for the remaining $782.86. A second statement was sent to Casanova on September 5, 2014.
On September 18, 2014, Home-Owners sent a second letter to Compass Health, indicating that if Compass Health wished to dispute the reasonableness of its $1,076.14 payment, it was to deal with Home-Owners directly, not with Casanova. Regardless, Compass Health sent Casanova invoices on October 20, 2014, and on February 11, 2016. On March 1, 2016, Home-Owners sent a second letter to Compass Health, advising that reasonable payment had been made to Compass Health on behalf of Casanova in accordance with MCL 500.3107 and MCL 500.3157. Home-Owners informed Compass Health that it could pursue legal action if it wished to dispute the reasonableness of the payment but that it was to cease having direct contact with Casanova. Nevertheless, Compass Health sent two more invoices to Casanova on April 11, 2016, and April 20, 2016.
On May 5, 2016, Home-Owners sent a third letter to Compass Health: this time, a notice to cease and desist. According to Home-Owners and Auto-Owners, the letter advised Compass Health that Home-Owners was "the only proper party to any dispute as to the reasonableness of the payment" and that all collections efforts directed at Casanova should be ceased. Yet on June 10, 2016, July 11, 2016, and August 10, 2016, Compass Health again sent invoices directly to Casanova.
On November 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed a five-count complaint against defendants, seeking a declaratory judgment under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq ., seeking a "declaration from the [c]ourt as to whether Compass [Health] may attempt to obtain payment" of its "balance bill" directly from Casanova, regardless of the reasonable payment made by Home-Owners. Plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief, requesting that Compass Health be prevented from contacting Casanova regarding collections pending the outcome of the instant action. Casanova also sought relief under Michigan's regulation of collection practices act (the MRCPA), MCL 445.251 et seq ., seeking damages. Finally, all plaintiffs sought attorney fees pursuant to MCL 500.3148(2).
In lieu of an answer, defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8) and for sanctions pursuant to MCR 2.114(F). Defendants argued that plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief was moot because the underlying debt giving rise to plaintiffs' claim was unenforceable. Specifically, defendants admitted that the "debt is unenforceable ... pursuant to the one-year-back rule that governs the recovery of benefits under" MCL 500.3145. Similarly, defendants argued that because the underlying debt was unenforceable, plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief was not yet ripe for review. Finally, defendants argued that plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(2) because plaintiffs could not recover fees related to a lawsuit they initiated. Defendants also sought sanctions, claiming that plaintiffs' lawsuit was "frivolous."
In response, Casanova argued that despite defendants' admission that the balance owed was unenforceable as a matter of law, defendants continued to contact him in an effort to collect the balance, and for that reason, plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested in their complaint. With his response to defendants' motion for summary disposition, Casanova included a countermotion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), which Home-Owners concurred with. Plaintiffs agreed that all the medical expenses incurred by Casanova were covered under his no-fault insurance policy with Home-Owners and that pursuant to MCL 500.3157, Home-Owners had paid defendants a reasonable amount for services actually rendered. Casanova asserted that he was therefore not responsible for the difference and that in light of defendants' own admission that the balance owed was unenforceable, summary disposition in favor of plaintiffs was appropriate.
Defendants replied, now arguing that plaintiffs had misunderstood their argument: although the balance bill was unenforceable under the no-fault act, Casanova still incurred an implied contractual obligation to pay independent of the act. Defendants articulated that they had not raised this argument earlier because plaintiffs had never claimed the balance was unenforceable under contract law and defendants were not required to negate every theory not raised by plaintiffs.
Following a hearing on defendants' motion for summary disposition and Casanova's countermotion for summary disposition, the trial court entered a written opinion and order granting summary disposition in favor of and awarding attorney fees and costs to plaintiffs and denying defendants summary disposition, sanctions, and attorney fees and costs. The trial court ultimately concluded that Michigan law is well settled, that there is no factual dispute that Home-Owners is Casanova's no-fault insurer, and that Home-Owners is, accordingly, "liable to pay benefits for Casanova's care, treatment, and rehabilitation arising out of this injury." Further, the court ruled that under MCL 500.3107(1)(a), Home-Owners must pay all "[a]llowable expenses consisting of all reasonable charges incurred for reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations ...." The court noted that defendants, as medical providers, also have duties under the no-fault act, including the duty to charge no more than a reasonable amount for the products, services, and accommodations rendered. As the court explained, this means that a medical provider " 'shall not exceed the amount the person or institution customarily charges for like products, services and accommodations in cases not involving insurance.' " (Quoting MCL 500.3157.)
The trial court went on to conclude that "it is a well-settled matter of law that insurance providers like Home-Owners ... have an obligation to audit charges and make only reasonable payments as part of a cost-policing function meant to provide health care providers an incentive to keep costs to a minimum." Further, the court stated that simply because plaintiffs did not frame their complaint as requesting a declaration about Casanova's contractual liability did not mean that plaintiffs' complaint "failed to state a claim or allege sufficient facts." Indeed, plaintiffs' "argument, through the Complaint and pleadings, is clearly that they are seeking a declaration on the question of whether the practice of reasonable partial payments made by insurers to providers allowed by the No-Fault Act should result in liability to the insured." To that end, the trial court concluded that given relevant caselaw, statutory interpretation, and public policy,
a [medical] provider cannot lawfully charge more than a reasonable amount for products, services, and accommodations, [and it] is clear, that once an insurer has made its required audit, determination, and payment of benefits for the reasonable and necessary charges billed by providers, a provider cannot then pursue and collect the remainder of the bill from a patient-insured. Where a provider disputes an insurer's determination and subsequent partial payments, that dispute belongs solely between the provider and insurer, and is subject to the one-year-back provision of MCL 500.3145.
Finally, the trial court concluded that by sending defendant at least 10 collections letters or billing statements and by ignoring the cease and desist letters sent by Home-Owners, defendants had willfully violated the MRCPA, "by making misleading statements to Casanova that he owed the balance bill, where [d]efendants were on notice that Casanova's liability was in dispute and where Casanova never owed the bill charged in accordance with the No-Fault Act, pursuant to MCL 445.252(e)." The court ruled that Casanova was therefore "entitled to $150 in damages per violation, that being each of the ten billing statements sent to Casanova in an attempt to collect a debt he did not owe." The trial court reiterated that because defendants violated MCL 445.252(e), all plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs under MCL 445.257(2).
Two days after the trial court entered its opinion and order, our Supreme Court issued its decision in Covenant Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 500 Mich. 191, 895 N.W.2d 490 (2017). On the basis of that opinion, defendants moved for reconsideration of the trial court's opinion and order under MCR 2.119(F). Defendants argued that after Covenant , medical providers have "no statutory cause of action under the No-Fault Act against insurers, but that they are not remediless as providers can seek payment from the injured person for their reasonable charges." Defendants asserted that, because Covenant is controlling "and precludes a finding in favor of [p]laintiffs," reconsideration was appropriate under MCR 2.119(F).
The trial court entered an opinion and order denying defendants' motion for reconsideration on August 7, 2017. The trial court concluded, in relevant part:
This Court acknowledges that, pursuant to Covenant , [d]efendants had a legal right to seek payment directly from Casanova under the provisions of the No-Fault Act. However, the issue presented before this Court was a separate consideration: whether health care providers could seek payment of "balance bills" from a patient-insured on a contractual liability theory, rather than under the No-Fault Act, after a provider's charges were audited for reasonableness and the provider was paid a partial payment based on the findings of those audits. This Court finds that although the May 23, 2017 Opinion & Order erred with regard to the determination that providers must dispute partial payments with insurers, rather than patient-insured, it does not affect this Court's determination that a provider does not have a contractual right to pursue a patient-insured after a provider's charges have been determined to be unreasonable in accordance with the No-Fault Act, and therefore, a different disposition of the motion is not required.
* * *
This Court determined that the provisions of the No-Fault Act requiring a provider to charge only "reasonable and necessary charges," and the provisions of the Act requiring an insurer to pay "[a]llowable expenses consisting of all reasonable charges ..." imposed a standard of reasonableness that an insurer was duty-bound to enforce through audits. MCL 500.3107, MCL 500.3157. The Covenant decision did not change or affect either the standard of reasonableness or the insurer's duty to audit; indeed, the Covenant decision noted that a provider may seek payment only for a provider's reasonable charges. Since the present case raises the issue of a "balance bill," Covenant does not provide [d]efendants with an unfettered right to pursue the patient-insured, Casanova, because [d]efendants' charges were found to be unreasonable.
This Court erred when it placed the dispute over whether [d]efendants' charges were reasonable between [d]efendants and Auto-Owners and Home-Owners, as Covenant removed a provider's cause of action against an insurer absent an assignment of no-fault benefits, but Covenant does not remove the necessity of resolving the dispute under the provisions of the No-Fault Act. [Citation omitted.]
The trial court further noted that defendants had admitted in their pleadings that the balance in question was unenforceable under the no-fault act's one-year-back rule. In light of the foregoing, the trial court concluded that "a different disposition of this case is not required." This appeal followed.
II. MEDICAL PROVIDER'S RIGHT TO SEEK PAYMENT OF BALANCE BILLS
Defendants first argue that the trial court erroneously refused to reverse its denial of summary disposition in plaintiffs' favor and that it instead erroneously concluded that despite Covenant , "medical providers have no contractual right to seek payment from their patients once their patients' insurers have paid the portion of the medical bills that the insurer deems reasonable ." We disagree.
"This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion a trial court's ruling on a motion for reconsideration." Sanders v. McLaren-Macomb , 323 Mich.App. 254, 264, 916 N.W.2d 305 (2018). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is "outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes." Id . (quotation marks and citation omitted). " MCR 2.119(F)(3) requires the party moving for reconsideration to 'demonstrate a palpable error by which the court and the parties have been misled and show that a different disposition of the motion must result from the correction of the error.' " Id . (citation omitted). "The trial court has 'considerable discretion in granting reconsideration to correct mistakes, to preserve judicial economy, and to minimize costs to the parties.' " Id . at 264-265, 916 N.W.2d 305 (citation omitted.) Additionally, we review de novo questions of law and the interpretation of statutes. Haksluoto v. Mt. Clemens Regional Med. Ctr. , 500 Mich. 304, 309-310, 901 N.W.2d 577 (2017). Defendant correctly argues that in Covenant , our Supreme Court held that "healthcare providers do not possess a statutory cause of action against no-fault insurers for recovery of personal protection insurance [PIP] benefits under the no-fault act" but that "a provider that furnishes healthcare services to a person for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident may seek payment from the injured person for the provider's reasonable charges." Covenant , 500 Mich. at 196, 217, 895 N.W.2d 490. Accordingly, pursuant to MCR 2.119(F)(3), the trial court was well within its discretion to consider defendants' motion for reconsideration and did, in fact, correctly conclude that it had previously erred by concluding that defendants were required to pursue only Home-Owners. After Covenant , the trial court correctly concluded on reconsideration that defendants had a "legal right to seek payment directly from Casanova under the provisions of the No-Fault Act."
The trial court also correctly concluded that despite our Supreme Court's holding in Covenant , defendants were still not entitled to summary disposition in their favor. The original question before the trial court was whether defendants could "seek payment of 'balance bills' from a patient-insured on a contractual liability theory, rather than under the No-Fault Act, after a provider's charges were audited for reasonableness and the provider was paid a partial payment based on the findings of those audits." We agree with the trial court and conclude that the answer to the question is no.
Under MCL 500.3157, a medical provider may only charge a "reasonable amount for the products, services and accommodations rendered" to an injured person for an accidental bodily injury covered by personal protection insurance. Likewise, under MCL 500.3107(1)(a), a no-fault insurer is only responsible for paying "[a]llowable expenses consisting of all reasonable charges incurred for reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations for an injured person's care, recovery, or rehabilitation." Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the " Covenant decision did not change or affect either the standard of reasonableness or the insurer's duty to audit; indeed, the Covenant Court noted that a provider may seek payment only for a provider's reasonable charges."
Our Supreme Court's decision in Covenant also did not affect the validity of this Court's decision in Advocacy Org. for Patients & Providers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n , 257 Mich.App. 365, 670 N.W.2d 569 (2003), aff'd 472 Mich. 91, 693 N.W.2d 358 (2005) ( AOPP ). This Court confirmed in AOPP that under the no-fault act, a medical provider will only be paid for reasonable and necessary charges actually incurred. AOPP , 257 Mich.App. at 374, 670 N.W.2d 569. The no-fault act
requires that an insurer only pay on behalf of the insured a "reasonable" charge for the particular product or service. However, the Legislature has not defined what is "reasonable" in this context, and, consequently, insurers must determine in each instance whether a charge is reasonable in light of the service or product provided. [ Id . at 379, 670 N.W.2d 569.]
Again, in Bronson Methodist Hosp. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. , 295 Mich.App. 431, 448, 814 N.W.2d 670 (2012), this Court concluded that no-fault insurers are required to challenge the reasonableness of a medical provider's charges and that medical providers should expect no less. Further, the " 'customary' fee a particular provider charges under [ MCL 500.3157 ] does not define what constitutes a 'reasonable charge' under [ MCL 500.3107 ]. ... Rather, the 'customary fee' is simply the cap on what health-care providers can charge, and is not, automatically, a 'reasonable' charge requiring full reimbursement under [ MCL 500.3107 ]." AOPP , 257 Mich.App. at 377, 670 N.W.2d 569.
However, medical providers are permitted to "challenge [the] failure to fully reimburse them for medical bills as a violation of" the no-fault act. Id . at 380, 670 N.W.2d 569. They must do so in the trial court, and the providers have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that their charges were reasonable. Id . See also Bronson , 295 Mich.App. at 450, 814 N.W.2d 670, in which this Court reiterated that the no-fault act contemplates that
insurers will assess the reasonableness of a provider's charges, paying that portion deemed reasonable, with the provider having the prerogative to then challenge the insurer's decision not to pay the entire charge submitted by filing suit. Once an action is filed, the provider has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the reasonableness of its charges.
As the trial court concluded in its opinion and order on reconsideration, "[t]he only effect of Covenant was to place the dispute over the reasonableness of the charges between a provider and a patient-insured, rather than between a provider and an insurer." It did not alter the method of disputing the reasonableness of the amount paid.
In this case, it is clear that defendants never filed an action against Home-Owners or against Casanova, challenging Home-Owners' determination of the reasonableness of its charges. Likewise, defendants never raised the reasonableness of its charges as an issue in its motion for summary disposition or any other responsive pleading, and never presented any evidence from which the trial court could have concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that the charge of $1,859 was reasonable and necessary for the services provided. Instead, defendants have chosen to harass Casanova over $782.86 outside the courts since 2014.
To conclude that defendants could prevail on the theory of an implied contract is contrary to the purpose of the no-fault act, and its implications would allow medical providers to circumvent the protective nature of the act. Therefore, we conclude that any claim defendants may have against Casanova would be for payment of services rendered to an injured person "covered by personal protection insurance" under the no-fault act. See MCL 500.3157. Accordingly, reversal of the trial court's original opinion and order granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiffs was unnecessary, and it was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion to refuse to do so.
III. ONE-YEAR-BACK RULE
Second, defendants argue that the trial court erroneously concluded that medical providers must file suit within one year from the date of providing medical services for automobile-related injuries because the one-year-back rule does not apply to benefits payable under Michigan contract law. Defendants further argue that after Covenant , a claim by a medical provider against its patient is not viewed as an action for recovery of PIP benefits under MCL 500.3145 ; rather, it is an "attendant contract claim." We disagree.
Again, "[t]his Court reviews for an abuse of discretion a trial court's ruling on a motion for reconsideration." Sanders , 323 Mich. App. at 264.
We disagree with defendants' interpretation of Covenant with respect to whether a claim against a medical provider is now viewed as an action for recovery of PIP benefits or a contract claim. Defendants would like this Court to conclude that after Covenant , a medical provider's claim against a patient-insured is an "attendant contract claim." However, the Covenant Court explicitly stated:
We conclude today only that a healthcare provider possesses no statutory right to sue a no-fault insurer. ... This Court need not consider whether [a medical provider] possesses a contractual right to sue ... because [the medical provider] did not allege any contractual basis for relief in its complaint. [ Covenant , 500 Mich. at 217 n. 39, 895 N.W.2d 490.]
Likewise, defendants never filed a complaint seeking payment from either Home-Owners or Casanova under a theory of implied contract or otherwise. The first time defendants advanced a theory of contractual liability was in a reply in opposition to Casanova's response to defendants' motion for summary disposition. Moreover, given our conclusion that any claim by defendants would still fall squarely within the parameters of the no-fault act, defendants' recovery would be subject to the one-year-back rule found in MCL 500.3145.
In this case, Home-Owners made a reasonable payment to Compass Health on behalf of Casanova on August 5, 2014. Therefore, in order to contest the reasonableness of the amount paid or to pursue the remaining $782.86, defendants would have had to file suit against Casanova on or before August 5, 2015. See MCL 500.3145, which provides that
[a]n action for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits payable under this chapter for accidental bodily injury may not be commenced later than 1 year after the date of the accident causing the injury ... unless the insurer has previously made a payment of personal protection insurance benefits for the injury. If ... a payment has been made, the action may by commenced at any time within 1 year after the most recent allowable expense ... has been incurred.
Defendants concede that they did not file any action in the trial court. Accordingly, any claim defendants may have had against Casanova is now barred by the one-year-back rule. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding the same.
Moreover, defendants conceded in their motion for summary disposition that "[p]laintiffs' debt to [d]efendants in the amount of $782.86 for the outstanding balance of the services rendered to ... Casanova on July 4, 2014 is unenforceable as a matter of law" because defendants chose not to pursue legal action. Further, defendants conceded that "[t]he debt is unenforceable ... pursuant to the one-year-back rule that governs the recovery of benefits under the" no-fault act. Therefore, defendants have waived this argument. See Bates Assoc., LLC v. 132 Assoc., LLC , 290 Mich.App. 52, 64, 799 N.W.2d 177 (2010), in which this Court articulated that a "party may not claim as error on appeal an issue that the party deemed proper in the trial court because doing so would permit the party to harbor error as an appellate parachute."
IV. RECOVERY UNDER THE MRCPA
Finally, defendants argue that the trial court erroneously granted Auto-Owners and Home-Owners relief under the MRCPA because only Casanova brought a claim. Defendants assert that Auto-Owners and Home-Owners are therefore not entitled to the attorney fees and costs awarded by the trial court under the MRCPA. We agree.
In their brief on appeal, Auto-Owners and Home-Owners concede that "the lower court awarded attorney fees only under the MRCPA and that only Mr. Casanova sought recovery under that Act in the Complaint. As a result, Auto-Owners and [Home-Owners] withdraw their request for fees." [Footnote omitted.] Further, Auto-Owners and Home-Owners correctly note in their brief on appeal that although the trial court awarded fees to Auto-Owners and Home-Owners under MCL 445.257(2) in its original opinion and order, it had not yet ruled on the fee request before this appeal. Therefore, Auto-Owners and Home-Owners argue, "any error on this point does not justify reversal."
Only Casanova sought relief under the MRCPA. Therefore, only Casanova is entitled to damages and reasonable attorney costs and fees under MCL 445.257(2). The trial court accordingly erred by awarding such fees to Auto-Owners and Home-Owners on that basis. We reverse the trial court's grant of reasonable attorney fees and costs to Auto-Owners and Home-Owners under MCL 445.257(2).
We affirm the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiffs and reverse the trial court's award of reasonable attorney fees and costs to Auto-Owners and Home-Owners under MCL 445.257(2).
Jansen and Gadola, JJ., concurred.
Compass Healthcare, PLC (Compass Health), and Lansing Neurosurgery (collectively, defendants).
Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Auto-Owners), Home-Owners Insurance Company (Home-Owners), and Caleb Casanova.
Lansing Neurosurgery is a division of Compass Health.
The phrase "balance billing" refers to a "healthcare provider's practice of requiring a patient or other responsible party to pay any charges remaining after insurance and other payments and allowances have been applied to the total amount due for the provider's services." Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.). | [
-47,
-4,
-68,
-82,
24,
-96,
56,
-102,
73,
-94,
-89,
-13,
-1,
-27,
21,
47,
-31,
63,
97,
99,
-41,
-93,
87,
-32,
-62,
-9,
-77,
85,
-72,
-17,
-26,
-43,
77,
120,
-126,
85,
-62,
-125,
-59,
80,
66,
-123,
-70,
-27,
121,
66,
112,
122,
94,
71,
49,
31,
-29,
46,
29,
75,
40,
8,
91,
-75,
-47,
-12,
-117,
13,
-53,
1,
-95,
52,
-104,
-121,
-38,
60,
-104,
49,
0,
-24,
115,
54,
-110,
20,
71,
-103,
20,
34,
102,
-96,
5,
-27,
120,
-100,
15,
-114,
-113,
7,
-101,
56,
27,
12,
-66,
-65,
124,
28,
-81,
126,
125,
-100,
29,
108,
25,
-114,
-108,
-95,
-1,
-32,
-99,
-63,
-2,
39,
52,
80,
-115,
-80,
94,
-58,
34,
59,
14,
-106
] |
On order of the Court, the motion to strike is GRANTED. The motion to take judicial notice is DENIED. | [
-112,
125,
-36,
28,
11,
96,
17,
-78,
-63,
19,
87,
115,
-19,
-14,
29,
127,
55,
103,
113,
121,
93,
51,
53,
73,
-14,
-45,
-47,
93,
-67,
-17,
-12,
60,
76,
-32,
-54,
-43,
70,
-127,
-51,
-40,
-114,
39,
56,
-20,
-111,
27,
40,
43,
90,
15,
17,
-121,
-29,
47,
29,
-62,
-120,
104,
75,
53,
-29,
61,
-99,
-99,
-67,
16,
-111,
33,
-98,
-122,
-48,
46,
-128,
57,
17,
-6,
87,
-74,
-121,
118,
100,
-5,
-127,
-69,
106,
19,
-19,
-19,
-120,
-24,
111,
88,
-66,
-94,
-109,
8,
105,
33,
-106,
-68,
53,
20,
39,
-2,
79,
-123,
45,
44,
-118,
75,
-74,
-89,
95,
61,
14,
9,
-21,
-110,
16,
52,
-53,
60,
94,
71,
-67,
123,
-114,
-106
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the April 19, 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. | [
-108,
120,
-44,
-84,
-118,
-32,
51,
-108,
65,
-121,
39,
83,
-17,
-6,
-108,
127,
-1,
15,
119,
123,
-37,
-77,
23,
-47,
114,
-13,
-45,
93,
117,
110,
-28,
62,
78,
-16,
-118,
-44,
70,
-63,
-23,
16,
-114,
5,
-104,
-51,
-15,
12,
56,
107,
-34,
15,
17,
-98,
99,
108,
24,
99,
-56,
40,
-37,
61,
-63,
-104,
-110,
14,
105,
16,
2,
52,
-100,
-26,
-48,
126,
-104,
57,
17,
-24,
112,
-74,
-109,
52,
105,
-69,
9,
113,
103,
-127,
77,
-17,
56,
-86,
39,
90,
-115,
38,
-102,
25,
107,
43,
-126,
-67,
52,
20,
44,
126,
106,
-115,
93,
-20,
10,
-33,
-92,
-77,
-97,
60,
-72,
-23,
-21,
-98,
50,
32,
-51,
-6,
92,
70,
51,
127,
-18,
-110
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the August 23, 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. | [
-12,
112,
-36,
-116,
-118,
97,
114,
-67,
65,
-53,
39,
83,
63,
-109,
-108,
123,
-61,
111,
119,
-5,
-4,
-75,
118,
65,
-14,
-13,
-77,
94,
-13,
126,
-27,
122,
78,
-15,
-102,
-44,
70,
-56,
-51,
22,
-114,
13,
-71,
-23,
-15,
77,
32,
35,
-38,
15,
113,
-34,
-29,
44,
-103,
65,
-88,
40,
-35,
39,
-59,
80,
-109,
13,
-1,
52,
-127,
16,
-97,
-26,
-48,
47,
-104,
49,
25,
-19,
48,
-78,
-105,
52,
99,
-5,
0,
35,
98,
-109,
-40,
-17,
25,
-70,
117,
74,
-99,
-26,
-101,
57,
75,
-31,
-122,
-71,
117,
20,
45,
126,
110,
-123,
94,
108,
-118,
-49,
-92,
-73,
-97,
92,
-108,
-118,
-21,
-107,
16,
97,
-116,
58,
92,
66,
51,
67,
-18,
-112
] |
On order of the Court, the motion to consider application on the merits is DENIED. The application for leave to appeal the April 18, 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,
120,
-36,
-84,
-118,
96,
-13,
53,
65,
-25,
111,
83,
-83,
-6,
-112,
127,
-113,
15,
101,
-5,
-35,
-77,
23,
-63,
114,
-13,
-110,
94,
-13,
-17,
-12,
58,
78,
112,
-102,
-108,
70,
-55,
107,
24,
-114,
7,
-103,
109,
-15,
74,
56,
35,
62,
15,
17,
-58,
-13,
44,
24,
99,
-56,
104,
-39,
41,
-63,
-48,
-126,
13,
125,
20,
-128,
20,
-113,
-57,
-48,
126,
16,
49,
8,
-23,
48,
-10,
-105,
116,
97,
-69,
-120,
33,
-29,
-127,
108,
-17,
57,
-86,
61,
90,
-81,
-90,
-45,
25,
75,
33,
-110,
-65,
52,
52,
47,
124,
111,
-115,
85,
-20,
-126,
-49,
-92,
-77,
94,
-68,
-96,
-31,
-21,
-110,
18,
97,
-35,
112,
28,
78,
51,
91,
-28,
-112
] |
On order of the Court, the motion to add issue is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the January 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. | [
-107,
120,
-3,
-83,
-120,
97,
-13,
-73,
65,
-29,
39,
-45,
-83,
-6,
-108,
127,
-97,
39,
87,
91,
-49,
-77,
87,
-39,
114,
-13,
-37,
95,
-15,
110,
-28,
56,
14,
96,
-118,
-44,
70,
-64,
-51,
80,
-114,
7,
-103,
-83,
-15,
106,
56,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-12,
-15,
44,
-104,
67,
-56,
104,
-37,
61,
-47,
-47,
-94,
13,
125,
20,
-127,
52,
-102,
-60,
-64,
126,
-112,
49,
24,
-23,
48,
-10,
-105,
52,
97,
-69,
8,
113,
-29,
-127,
108,
-17,
41,
-86,
21,
74,
-81,
38,
-46,
25,
75,
32,
-110,
-65,
52,
52,
37,
62,
111,
-115,
20,
-84,
-126,
-61,
-92,
-77,
95,
120,
-120,
-53,
-21,
-106,
-112,
32,
-59,
122,
28,
78,
51,
123,
-26,
-112
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 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). The motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing and/or to expand the record is DENIED. | [
-112,
-24,
-20,
-84,
10,
97,
3,
62,
65,
-61,
127,
-41,
-17,
-14,
16,
127,
10,
127,
117,
123,
95,
-93,
23,
81,
-13,
-46,
-109,
87,
-11,
-49,
-28,
48,
76,
-16,
-118,
-43,
70,
-86,
-81,
84,
-114,
3,
-7,
-19,
-15,
43,
48,
107,
-98,
15,
49,
-36,
-29,
46,
24,
-64,
-55,
105,
91,
57,
-63,
-47,
-85,
13,
122,
52,
-96,
52,
-98,
3,
112,
126,
-80,
49,
1,
-21,
50,
-74,
-105,
52,
99,
-69,
40,
32,
-62,
1,
76,
-17,
-71,
-86,
47,
24,
-66,
-89,
-46,
57,
74,
107,
-106,
-71,
93,
54,
46,
124,
110,
-108,
116,
44,
-126,
-49,
-92,
-79,
-53,
124,
-92,
-117,
-29,
-109,
16,
49,
-51,
-16,
92,
66,
51,
31,
-18,
-112
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 4, 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. | [
-104,
-20,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
-45,
31,
65,
-29,
63,
-45,
-81,
-14,
-108,
127,
-68,
79,
118,
91,
-37,
-73,
23,
65,
114,
-45,
-41,
92,
113,
110,
-12,
58,
14,
-32,
-102,
-43,
70,
-63,
105,
84,
-116,
7,
-39,
-51,
-111,
-118,
0,
34,
62,
15,
17,
-12,
-29,
44,
24,
99,
-56,
40,
-37,
-84,
-63,
-47,
-76,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
52,
-98,
-29,
-40,
126,
-56,
49,
13,
-19,
112,
-74,
-111,
116,
41,
-71,
12,
117,
107,
-127,
13,
-17,
-40,
-86,
51,
122,
-65,
39,
-110,
25,
-21,
33,
-122,
-67,
124,
22,
47,
124,
106,
5,
94,
-26,
-126,
-113,
-92,
-73,
-37,
124,
-72,
-21,
-23,
-106,
18,
33,
-43,
120,
92,
78,
55,
73,
-26,
56
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 16, 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. | [
-99,
104,
-35,
-84,
-86,
-32,
-13,
-99,
65,
-73,
127,
-47,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-68,
15,
52,
91,
-33,
-73,
87,
-64,
114,
-45,
-42,
-35,
-13,
111,
-12,
56,
14,
-16,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
73,
-104,
-114,
7,
-7,
-51,
-111,
91,
32,
99,
94,
15,
17,
-108,
99,
44,
25,
99,
-56,
44,
-39,
-83,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
-3,
4,
-128,
52,
-101,
-89,
-48,
62,
-104,
25,
5,
-24,
112,
-74,
-111,
52,
105,
-71,
-116,
117,
107,
-127,
44,
-21,
-72,
-86,
7,
122,
-83,
39,
-110,
24,
-22,
33,
-126,
-67,
116,
18,
47,
124,
78,
13,
78,
-2,
-126,
-97,
-90,
-77,
-101,
60,
56,
-23,
-21,
-106,
18,
97,
-35,
112,
92,
78,
55,
125,
-26,
56
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's July 27, 2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. | [
-111,
108,
-52,
-115,
10,
32,
49,
55,
-64,
-93,
111,
83,
-21,
-45,
-108,
127,
-83,
15,
-16,
123,
-49,
-77,
23,
73,
114,
-45,
-62,
95,
-79,
-17,
-4,
62,
76,
-16,
-38,
-105,
68,
-64,
-25,
86,
-114,
-127,
25,
109,
-47,
12,
0,
3,
30,
15,
117,
-60,
-31,
44,
24,
-62,
-23,
40,
-35,
125,
-63,
-104,
-102,
7,
111,
4,
1,
52,
-102,
-60,
-8,
62,
-100,
49,
25,
-54,
51,
118,
-107,
112,
105,
-5,
4,
-16,
-85,
65,
77,
-18,
-104,
-86,
53,
44,
37,
-90,
-46,
88,
-53,
33,
-110,
-71,
52,
38,
38,
62,
15,
-91,
93,
110,
10,
-17,
-76,
-69,
92,
60,
40,
-31,
-5,
-112,
-112,
32,
-51,
-16,
94,
106,
17,
-13,
-25,
-74
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 23, 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). The motions for an evidentiary hearing, to produce transcripts and documents, and for a dispositional phase I and II hearing are DENIED. | [
-112,
-24,
-3,
-84,
-118,
96,
-125,
28,
65,
-125,
127,
-45,
-19,
-14,
4,
127,
43,
95,
117,
123,
75,
-93,
7,
81,
-13,
-38,
-110,
95,
-73,
-49,
-28,
50,
76,
-16,
-54,
-43,
68,
-64,
-19,
88,
-114,
3,
-39,
-19,
-79,
25,
56,
107,
-66,
15,
49,
-36,
-13,
44,
24,
72,
-55,
104,
-37,
-71,
-63,
-48,
-85,
13,
104,
52,
-96,
20,
-118,
103,
-48,
62,
-80,
49,
1,
-7,
48,
-74,
-121,
52,
97,
-69,
40,
32,
-62,
-127,
77,
-17,
121,
-70,
47,
58,
-100,
-90,
-38,
41,
75,
97,
-106,
-39,
117,
54,
38,
126,
110,
-124,
92,
108,
-62,
-49,
-92,
-79,
-117,
124,
-96,
-117,
-21,
-110,
18,
49,
-51,
-6,
92,
66,
51,
31,
-2,
-48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 27, 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. Due to the unique circumstances of this case, we DIRECT that court to treat the defendant's delayed application for leave to appeal as having been filed within the deadline set forth in MCR 7.205(G) and to decide whether to grant, deny, or order other relief, in accordance with MCR 7.205(E)(2). The motion to remand is DENIED, without prejudice to the defendant's assertion of the motion in the Court of Appeals.
We do not retain jurisdiction. | [
-112,
-16,
-36,
-116,
-86,
96,
115,
-68,
65,
-45,
39,
-45,
-67,
-6,
-108,
123,
11,
111,
117,
-7,
-3,
-73,
86,
65,
114,
-13,
-109,
95,
-73,
-34,
-27,
62,
76,
-16,
10,
-44,
70,
-64,
-49,
20,
-114,
-123,
-7,
-19,
113,
11,
48,
99,
30,
15,
49,
-34,
-29,
46,
-103,
-64,
-24,
104,
-37,
63,
-63,
81,
-109,
13,
127,
4,
-96,
48,
-97,
-57,
-48,
127,
-104,
49,
17,
-24,
48,
-74,
-121,
52,
99,
-69,
40,
0,
-30,
-127,
92,
-17,
25,
-72,
29,
24,
-99,
-26,
-103,
25,
75,
97,
-122,
-71,
85,
52,
44,
124,
78,
-123,
84,
108,
10,
-49,
-96,
-77,
-33,
61,
-86,
-127,
-30,
-109,
16,
49,
-116,
-86,
92,
66,
51,
11,
-2,
-48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 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 miscellaneous relief is DENIED. | [
-100,
104,
-36,
-84,
-86,
-32,
-13,
37,
65,
-121,
47,
83,
-81,
-6,
-108,
127,
-115,
79,
119,
123,
-33,
-73,
55,
-55,
-14,
-13,
-45,
95,
55,
111,
-28,
58,
78,
112,
-118,
-108,
70,
-63,
-19,
20,
-114,
5,
-103,
-19,
-111,
14,
40,
107,
126,
15,
49,
-42,
-29,
44,
28,
96,
-56,
104,
-37,
41,
-63,
-112,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
0,
20,
-114,
-58,
-64,
126,
-80,
57,
17,
-3,
48,
-74,
-109,
116,
65,
-69,
-128,
65,
99,
-127,
12,
-21,
8,
-86,
53,
120,
-113,
38,
-102,
25,
74,
40,
-106,
-65,
52,
22,
47,
126,
110,
-115,
85,
-84,
-126,
-49,
-92,
-77,
-102,
60,
40,
-87,
-22,
22,
18,
97,
-52,
-8,
92,
78,
51,
123,
-26,
-110
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's July 27, 2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. | [
-111,
108,
-52,
-115,
10,
32,
49,
55,
-64,
-93,
111,
83,
-21,
-45,
-108,
127,
-83,
15,
-16,
123,
-49,
-77,
23,
73,
114,
-45,
-62,
95,
-79,
-17,
-4,
62,
76,
-16,
-38,
-105,
68,
-64,
-25,
86,
-114,
-127,
25,
109,
-47,
12,
0,
3,
30,
15,
117,
-60,
-31,
44,
24,
-62,
-23,
40,
-35,
125,
-63,
-104,
-102,
7,
111,
4,
1,
52,
-102,
-60,
-8,
62,
-100,
49,
25,
-54,
51,
118,
-107,
112,
105,
-5,
4,
-16,
-85,
65,
77,
-18,
-104,
-86,
53,
44,
37,
-90,
-46,
88,
-53,
33,
-110,
-71,
52,
38,
38,
62,
15,
-91,
93,
110,
10,
-17,
-76,
-69,
92,
60,
40,
-31,
-5,
-112,
-112,
32,
-51,
-16,
94,
106,
17,
-13,
-25,
-74
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 3, 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). The motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. | [
-112,
-32,
-20,
-84,
42,
97,
3,
-100,
65,
-61,
127,
-45,
-17,
-14,
0,
127,
10,
95,
117,
121,
95,
-89,
7,
81,
-13,
-46,
-109,
-33,
-73,
-50,
-28,
48,
76,
-16,
-54,
-47,
70,
-64,
-83,
80,
-114,
3,
-7,
-19,
-15,
11,
56,
107,
62,
15,
49,
-36,
-13,
46,
24,
64,
-55,
104,
91,
61,
-63,
80,
-93,
13,
104,
20,
-95,
52,
-118,
7,
112,
126,
-80,
49,
1,
-23,
50,
-74,
-105,
52,
97,
-69,
40,
32,
-62,
1,
109,
-17,
121,
-86,
47,
24,
-98,
-90,
-38,
121,
75,
107,
-110,
-71,
85,
54,
36,
124,
110,
-108,
84,
108,
-58,
-33,
-92,
-79,
-113,
124,
-96,
-53,
-17,
-106,
16,
33,
-51,
114,
94,
66,
51,
31,
-18,
-48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 6, 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. | [
-119,
92,
-43,
-68,
-118,
-32,
-13,
29,
64,
-89,
127,
-45,
-83,
-6,
20,
127,
-68,
15,
116,
91,
93,
-79,
23,
-40,
114,
-13,
-34,
92,
-13,
-18,
-12,
56,
14,
-16,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
73,
-104,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
80,
8,
99,
30,
15,
17,
-99,
99,
44,
24,
98,
-56,
104,
-37,
-83,
-63,
-48,
-94,
15,
109,
20,
-126,
52,
-118,
-57,
-40,
126,
-100,
49,
13,
-8,
113,
-90,
-109,
52,
105,
-69,
4,
113,
110,
-127,
108,
-18,
56,
-86,
13,
122,
-115,
-90,
-102,
25,
-53,
33,
-110,
-67,
116,
22,
47,
124,
106,
21,
92,
-2,
4,
-49,
-90,
-73,
-37,
60,
-80,
-23,
-21,
-70,
26,
33,
-35,
-8,
92,
76,
51,
93,
-2,
-72
] |
Shapiro, P.J.
In this interlocutory appeal respondents assert that the trial court erred by denying their motion for a proposed jury instruction based on MCL 722.634 in the adjudicative phase of a child protection proceeding. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reverse the trial court's decision not to give the jury instruction and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. FACTS
On February 6, 2017, respondent-mother gave birth to the couple's third child, AP. AP was born at home with the assistance of a midwife, Sandra McCurdy. The day after AP's birth, McCurdy visited respondent's home and expressed concern to respondent-mother that AP was suffering from jaundice, a condition common to newborns that, while potentially life-threatening, readily responds to treatment. McCurdy suggested that respondents take AP to the doctor, but they did not do so. With respondents' permission, McCurdy contacted a doctor regarding AP's jaundice, but respondents did not reply when the doctor's office tried to reach them. Respondents claim to be members of a Christian sect that believes that no medical treatment may be administered other than first aid. According to the petition, AP's health continued to degenerate, and she died on February 9, 2017.
On that morning, respondents found AP in an unresponsive state. They did not contact emergency medical services but instead prayed for the child's resurrection. Respondent-father later reported that he attempted a "rescue breath" on AP but did not know how to perform CPR on a baby; he stated that the only thing he knew to do was to "pray and ask for help from God." Respondents also called members of their church, who came to the home and prayed with them. The police were notified about AP's death eight hours later. An autopsy revealed that AP's cause of death was "unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia with kernicterus." The doctor who performed the autopsy explained that "[j]aundice is a very treatable condition" and that AP likely would have survived if respondents had sought medical attention.
Following AP's death, a Family Team Meeting was held on March 7, 2017. According to petitioner, at that meeting, respondents stated that despite AP's symptoms, they chose to "believe in the word of God over the symptoms" and believed that any medical condition that could not be controlled with basic first aid should be left in the hands of God. Concerned that respondents would decline to seek medical treatment for their remaining two children, MP and JP, petitioner filed a termination petition, which was authorized by the court. MP and JP were then removed from respondents' custody and placed with their maternal grandparents.
Approximately two months later, the trial court issued an ex parte order returning the children to respondents on condition that they comply with a safety plan and refrain from using physical discipline. Six days later, respondents requested that the trial court amend the ex parte order to provide that respondents "may only use physical discipline of any kind upon the children as permitted under Michigan law" on the basis that they sincerely held a religious belief that physical discipline should be used. The children were again removed from respondents' custody for failure to comply with the court's order after it was alleged that respondents said that they would not obey the court order and that respondent-father said that "the children are being trained with physical discipline in obeying my words."
The matter was then scheduled for an adjudication trial before a jury. Prior to trial, respondents requested a jury instruction based on MCL 722.634, which provides:
A parent or guardian legitimately practicing his religious beliefs who thereby does not provide specified medical treatment for a child, for that reason alone shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian. This section shall not preclude a court from ordering the provision of medical services or nonmedical remedial services recognized by state law to a child where the child's health requires it nor does it abrogate the responsibility of a person required to report child abuse or neglect.
Respondents argued that because their defense was based on this statute, the court should provide an instruction reflecting its content. Respondents also argued that their rights under the First Amendment mandated an instruction based on religious liberty. In response, petitioner argued that the instruction should not be given because the use of the term "negligent" in the statute is a tort concept, and so MCL 722.634 does not apply in the context of child neglect cases. The trial court agreed with petitioner, stating:
The statute in question is [MCL] 722.634. It says a parent or guardian legitimately practicing his religious beliefs who thereby does not provide specified medical treatment for a child, for that reason alone shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian.
... [N]egligence law has nothing to do with the law in child protection matters. Therefore, that portion of the statute is not relevant to these proceedings.
The section goes on to say, the section shall not preclude a court from ordering the provision of medical services or non-medical remedial services recognized by state law to a child where the child's health requires it, nor does it abrogate the responsibility of a person required to report child abuse or neglect. So the second part of that paragraph confirms that negligence and neglect are two different bodies of law.
This interlocutory appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
On appeal, respondents argue that the trial court erred by holding that the statute does not apply to child protection proceedings. We agree.
MCL 722.634 is a provision of the Child Protection Law (CPL), MCL 722.621 et seq ., the purpose of which "is to protect abused and neglected children."
Becker-Witt v. Bd. of Examiners of Social Workers , 256 Mich. App. 359, 364, 663 N.W.2d 514 (2003). Analysis of the Legislature's intent with respect to MCL 722.634 requires statutory interpretation. "The goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the Legislature's intent as determined from the language of the statute." Bukowski v. Detroit , 478 Mich. 268, 273, 732 N.W.2d 75 (2007). The words in the statute are interpreted in "light of their ordinary meaning and their context within the statute and read ... harmoniously to give effect to the statute as a whole." Johnson v. Recca , 492 Mich. 169, 177, 821 N.W.2d 520 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition to a phrase's plain meaning, courts must consider "its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme." U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Mich. Catastrophic Claims Ass'n (On Rehearing) , 484 Mich. 1, 13, 795 N.W.2d 101 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The trial court's view that this statute does not apply in child protective proceedings is erroneous because that view is inconsistent with the statutory language. Child protection proceedings often involve allegations that the parent is negligent in caring for a child. The CPL defines "child neglect" as
harm or threatened harm to a child's health or welfare by a parent, legal guardian, or any other person responsible for the child's health or welfare that occurs through either of the following:
(i) Negligent treatment, including the failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.
(ii) Placing a child at an unreasonable risk to the child's health or welfare by failure of the parent, legal guardian, or other person responsible for the child's health or welfare to intervene to eliminate that risk when that person is able to do so and has, or should have, knowledge of the risk. [ MCL 722.622(k)(i) and (ii).]
As was stated in Mich. Ass'n of Intermediate Special Ed. Administrators v. Dep't of Social Servs. , 207 Mich. App. 491, 497, 526 N.W.2d 36 (1994), "[c]hild neglect is harm to a child's welfare that occurs through negligent treatment or failure to eliminate an unreasonable risk to the child's welfare." We conclude that the mandate of MCL 722.634 applies in child protection proceedings.
There is no standard instruction reflecting the content of MCL 722.634. Therefore, the sought instruction is "necessary to state the applicable law accurately'' and ... ''the matter is not adequately covered by other pertinent model civil jury instructions." MCR 2.512(D)(3)(a) and (b). Consistently with MCL 722.634, the trial court must instruct the jury that ''[a] parent or guardian legitimately practicing his religious beliefs who thereby does not provide specified medical treatment for a child, for that reason alone shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian."
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
M.J. Kelly, J., concurred with Shapiro, P.J.
I agree with the majority's conclusion that MCL 722.634 of the Child Protection Law (CPL), MCL 722.621 et seq. , applies in child protective proceedings. I write separately because I disagree that this entitles respondents to a jury instruction on MCL 722.634. I believe that the applicability of that instruction to this case remains in the trial court's discretion. See Hill v. Hoig , 258 Mich. App. 538, 540, 672 N.W.2d 531 (2003).
The parties are contesting whether MCL 722.634 is applicable to their upcoming adjudication trial. Whether jurisdiction is proper will be determined by MCL 712A.2(b), which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Jurisdiction in proceedings concerning a juvenile under 18 years of age found within the county:
(1) Whose parent or other person legally responsible for the care and maintenance of the juvenile, when able to do so, neglects or refuses to provide proper or necessary support, education, medical, surgical, or other care necessary for his or her health or morals, who is subject to a substantial risk of harm to his or her mental well-being, who is abandoned by his or her parents, guardian, or other custodian, or who is without proper custody or guardianship. ...
* * *
(2) Whose home or environment, by reason of neglect, cruelty, drunkenness, criminality, or depravity on the part of a parent, guardian, nonparent adult, or other custodian, is an unfit place for the juvenile to live in.
MCL 722.634 provides as follows:
A parent or guardian legitimately practicing his religious beliefs who thereby does not provide specified medical treatment for a child, for that reason alone shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian. This section shall not preclude a court from ordering the provision of medical services or nonmedical remedial services recognized by state law to a child where the child's health requires it nor does it abrogate the responsibility of a person required to report child abuse or neglect.
The majority correctly concludes that MCL 722.634 provides a defense in child protective proceedings given its use of the term "negligent parent." I would clarify, however, that MCL 722.634 only applies when there is a question of "neglect." Although the CPL does not expressly define "negligent," MCL 722.622 does define "child neglect" to include ''[n]egligent treatment, including the failure to provide adequate ... medical care." MCL 722.622(k)(i ). Further, the dictionary defines "negligent" as "marked by or given to neglect," and the first synonym listed is "neglectful." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.). Therefore, the phrase "a negligent parent" in MCL 722.634 refers to a parent's act-or acts-of "neglect," which is often at issue in child protective proceedings. Accordingly, I agree with the majority that MCL 722.634 applies to child protective proceedings and, as relevant here, provides a defense to MCL 712A.2(b).
However, this does not necessarily entitle respondents to an instruction on MCL 722.634 in this case. MCL 712A.2(b)(1) differentiates between acts of "neglect" and acts of refusal. Specifically, MCL 712A.2(b)(1) states that a court may take jurisdiction if a parent "neglects or refuses to provide proper or necessary ... medical ... care...." (Emphasis added.) As stated, the use of the phrase "negligent parent" in MCL 722.634 shows that the Legislature only intended to provide a defense for acts of neglect. Therefore, it is significant that the Legislature differentiates "neglects" and "refuses"; a parent who "neglects" to provide medical care to his or her child is entitled to a defense under MCL 722.634, whereas a parent who "refuses" to provide medical care is not.
Accordingly, I agree with the majority's conclusion that MCL 722.634 applies in child protective proceedings. However, I would respectfully disagree that "the trial court must instruct the jury" on MCL 722.634. Rather, on remand, I would direct the trial court to decide the applicability of MCL 722.634 to this case on the basis of the evidence presented at trial.
In re Piland Minors , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered December 20, 2017 (Docket No. 340754).
Hyperbilirubinemia is "[a]n abnormally high level of bilirubin in the circulating blood, resulting in clinically apparent icterus or jaundice when the concentration is sufficient." Stedman's Medical Dictionary (28th ed.), p. 918. Kernicterus is "[j]aundice associated with high levels of unconjugated bilirubin, or in small premature infants with more modest degrees of bilirubinemia ; ... characterized early clinically by ... high-pitched cry, lethargy, and poor sucking...." Stedman's Medical Dictionary (28th ed.), p. 1027.
"A Family Team Meeting is an opportunity for parents, extended family members, children (if age appropriate), caregivers and child welfare staff to meet and share ideas that will assist the family in creating and reviewing a plan related to the child(ren)'s safety, stability, well-being and permanence." Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Family Team Meeting Informational Sheet , DHS-1104, available at https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/DHS-1104_364119_7.dot (accessed April 26, 2018) [https://perma.cc/R4EN-P4LN].
The subject petition was filed on March 31, 2017. Petitioner had attempted to file a petition on March 8, 2017, but it was not authorized because more information was needed regarding the autopsy.
This Court reviews de novo questions of statutory interpretation and constitutional law. In re Deng , 314 Mich. App. 615, 621, 887 N.W.2d 445 (2016).
The title of the CPL describes the CPL as follows:
An act to require the reporting of child abuse and neglect by certain persons; to permit the reporting of child abuse and neglect by all persons; to provide for the protection of children who are abused or neglected ; to authorize limited detainment in protective custody; to authorize medical examinations; to prescribe the powers and duties of the state department of social services to prevent child abuse and neglect; to prescribe certain powers and duties of local law enforcement agencies; to safeguard and enhance the welfare of children and preserve family life; to provide for the appointment of legal counsel; to provide for the abrogation of privileged communications; to provide civil and criminal immunity for certain persons; to provide rules of evidence in certain cases; to provide for confidentiality of records; to provide for the expungement of certain records; to prescribe penalties; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts. [1975 PA 238, title, as amended by 1988 PA 372, effective March 30, 1989 (emphasis added).]
Respondents also argue that they would be entitled to an instruction of this sort even in the absence of MCL 722.634 because the First Amendment guarantees their right to freedom of religion. We disagree. As held by the United States Supreme Court, "[T]he family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty." Prince v. Massachusetts , 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944). "The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death." Id . at 166-167, 64 S.Ct. 438.
MCL 712A.2(b)(1) will be amended, and effective June 12, 2018, " '[n]eglect' means that term as defined in section 2 of the child abuse and neglect prevention act, 1982 PA 250, MCL 722.602." 2018 PA 58. MCL 722.602(d) defines "neglect" as "harm to a child's health or welfare by a person responsible for the child's health or welfare which occurs through negligent treatment, including the failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care." MCL 722.602 will also be amended, effective June 12, 2018, but the change in its meaning is not significant to this case. See 2018 PA 60 (among other things, adding "though financially able to do so, or the failure to seek financial or other reasonable means to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care" to the definition of "neglect").
Notably, this mirrors the definition of "neglect" that appears by reference in MCL 712A.2(b)(1)(B), effective June 12, 2018. | [
-112,
108,
109,
-84,
26,
97,
106,
26,
81,
-93,
-27,
115,
-85,
-38,
-107,
107,
-30,
53,
81,
121,
-48,
-73,
87,
72,
-14,
-5,
48,
-41,
-77,
106,
-28,
-2,
76,
114,
-118,
-43,
98,
14,
-55,
-42,
-122,
-109,
-103,
-4,
17,
-110,
52,
123,
94,
15,
53,
-105,
-77,
42,
-98,
-25,
-88,
46,
91,
-67,
-48,
-8,
-119,
5,
-49,
8,
-95,
52,
-102,
-124,
-40,
126,
24,
-79,
8,
-24,
50,
54,
-126,
-12,
75,
-119,
12,
117,
-26,
-96,
40,
-19,
-16,
-118,
111,
30,
29,
38,
-101,
105,
73,
45,
-73,
-65,
124,
84,
14,
-8,
-50,
77,
108,
-20,
4,
-113,
20,
-79,
-57,
48,
28,
-125,
-29,
-121,
50,
117,
-51,
-30,
92,
-57,
59,
-43,
-2,
-6
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 26, 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. | [
-99,
104,
-35,
-68,
-120,
-32,
-13,
29,
64,
-89,
103,
-45,
-81,
-6,
-108,
127,
-115,
15,
118,
91,
-33,
-77,
87,
-55,
122,
-13,
-45,
95,
51,
110,
-28,
60,
78,
112,
-102,
-107,
70,
-63,
-21,
28,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
72,
40,
35,
54,
15,
17,
-74,
-29,
44,
28,
96,
-56,
104,
-39,
41,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
16,
-98,
-58,
-64,
126,
-104,
49,
12,
-19,
112,
-90,
-111,
116,
73,
-71,
-100,
81,
43,
-127,
12,
-21,
-104,
-86,
21,
120,
-113,
-90,
-110,
25,
-53,
32,
-106,
-65,
116,
54,
47,
124,
14,
-115,
87,
-82,
-94,
-49,
-92,
-73,
17,
60,
40,
-23,
-5,
-106,
18,
97,
-35,
-8,
28,
78,
51,
121,
-26,
-112
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 7, 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. | [
-40,
108,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
-13,
29,
64,
-89,
103,
-45,
-83,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
102,
-37,
-33,
-77,
23,
-63,
114,
-13,
-37,
95,
51,
110,
-11,
58,
78,
112,
-118,
-107,
70,
-63,
77,
90,
-114,
7,
-103,
77,
-111,
72,
40,
107,
62,
15,
17,
-106,
-29,
108,
-104,
98,
-56,
104,
-39,
-67,
-63,
-40,
-126,
15,
125,
4,
0,
48,
-97,
-62,
-64,
126,
-104,
48,
12,
-4,
112,
38,
-111,
116,
105,
-69,
-99,
81,
107,
-127,
12,
-29,
40,
-85,
21,
120,
-81,
38,
-110,
57,
75,
32,
-106,
-67,
116,
118,
47,
124,
74,
-115,
93,
-2,
34,
-49,
-90,
-73,
-37,
60,
40,
105,
-22,
-106,
18,
97,
-43,
-8,
92,
76,
51,
121,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 23, 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,
-20,
-35,
-68,
-88,
-16,
-13,
29,
65,
-89,
47,
-45,
-81,
-46,
-108,
127,
-67,
15,
116,
91,
-54,
-77,
23,
-64,
114,
-45,
-97,
93,
115,
110,
-12,
57,
10,
96,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
105,
-38,
-114,
7,
-99,
-51,
-111,
65,
48,
99,
94,
15,
17,
-108,
99,
108,
-100,
99,
-56,
40,
91,
-83,
-63,
-48,
-74,
15,
125,
0,
-127,
52,
-103,
-25,
-48,
62,
-104,
57,
5,
-24,
112,
-74,
-107,
52,
105,
-69,
-120,
117,
107,
-127,
108,
-29,
-72,
-85,
7,
106,
-65,
34,
-102,
56,
-21,
33,
-110,
-71,
116,
22,
47,
126,
106,
13,
79,
-2,
34,
-113,
-92,
-77,
-101,
124,
-72,
-23,
-21,
-106,
-110,
97,
-35,
120,
92,
76,
55,
109,
-26,
24
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 1, 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, of whether MCL 768.7a authorized the trial court to require the sentences in this case to run consecutively with the defendant's sentence for violating probation in an earlier case. On remand, the Court of Appeals shall address: (1) whether the definition of "prison" found in MCL 750.193(2) controls whether a facility is a "penal or reformatory institution" for purposes of MCL 768.7a(1), even though the two statutes appear in different codes, compare People v. Johnson , 96 Mich.App. 84, 86-88, 292 N.W.2d 489 (1980), and People v. Parker , 319 Mich.App. 410, 901 N.W.2d 632 (2017), with People v. Washington , 501 Mich. 342, 357, 916 N.W.2d 477 (2018) ; (2) if so, whether the Kalamazoo Probation Enhancement Program (KPEP) falls within that definition of "prison"; and (3) if not, whether the Legislature intended for a program like KPEP to be treated as a "penal or reformatory institution" for purposes of MCL 768.7a. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
80,
-38,
-35,
-68,
42,
97,
16,
20,
99,
-13,
101,
83,
-83,
86,
-127,
123,
-37,
111,
64,
125,
-35,
-73,
103,
-63,
-2,
-5,
-66,
-33,
51,
94,
-28,
122,
72,
-32,
-118,
85,
-58,
-64,
-29,
86,
-114,
13,
-5,
-55,
-47,
1,
52,
99,
18,
14,
113,
-97,
-29,
44,
24,
-62,
-119,
40,
-39,
-83,
-103,
-72,
-69,
13,
123,
36,
-96,
4,
-100,
-89,
-48,
127,
-100,
17,
2,
-8,
112,
-74,
-121,
52,
75,
-69,
-92,
35,
98,
-127,
56,
-17,
-55,
-88,
29,
26,
-99,
-25,
-40,
88,
74,
69,
-108,
-7,
116,
54,
47,
124,
102,
-123,
87,
111,
-60,
-53,
-84,
-79,
15,
61,
-126,
-56,
-29,
37,
48,
113,
-36,
74,
80,
70,
51,
81,
-18,
-48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 2, 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. | [
-127,
108,
-11,
-84,
-118,
-32,
-13,
21,
65,
-89,
127,
-45,
-81,
-14,
20,
127,
-100,
15,
117,
91,
95,
-79,
87,
-63,
114,
-45,
-98,
-33,
-15,
110,
-12,
56,
14,
-16,
-118,
-107,
70,
-63,
74,
88,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
41,
56,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-108,
99,
44,
-104,
98,
-56,
40,
-37,
-67,
-47,
-48,
-106,
13,
109,
0,
-125,
52,
-102,
-25,
-40,
54,
-100,
57,
-127,
-28,
112,
-74,
-105,
116,
105,
-69,
13,
125,
107,
-127,
45,
-29,
120,
-22,
5,
122,
-65,
35,
-102,
25,
-21,
32,
-126,
-67,
116,
54,
41,
124,
102,
5,
28,
-18,
2,
-117,
-92,
-77,
91,
124,
-80,
104,
-21,
-110,
-110,
-95,
-107,
56,
84,
70,
51,
125,
-10,
-104
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 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. | [
-104,
108,
-35,
-84,
-118,
-16,
-45,
31,
65,
-25,
127,
-41,
-81,
-14,
-124,
127,
-68,
47,
114,
91,
-37,
-77,
55,
65,
114,
-45,
-33,
-36,
115,
110,
-12,
58,
14,
-32,
-102,
-43,
70,
-63,
105,
88,
-114,
7,
-39,
-51,
-111,
43,
48,
34,
62,
15,
17,
-108,
-29,
44,
25,
99,
-56,
104,
-37,
-87,
-47,
-47,
-110,
13,
125,
4,
-126,
48,
-98,
-93,
-40,
126,
-104,
49,
13,
-23,
112,
-90,
-111,
52,
105,
-71,
12,
117,
98,
-127,
77,
-25,
-8,
-21,
35,
106,
-65,
39,
-110,
25,
-21,
-95,
-126,
-71,
124,
20,
47,
124,
66,
-107,
-36,
-2,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-73,
-37,
124,
-72,
-23,
-17,
-66,
18,
33,
-43,
-72,
28,
70,
51,
121,
-26,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 22, 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. | [
-127,
-20,
-36,
-68,
-88,
112,
-45,
21,
65,
-89,
111,
-47,
-81,
-38,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
119,
91,
-51,
-79,
55,
65,
114,
-45,
-41,
95,
49,
110,
-12,
57,
14,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
73,
20,
-114,
7,
-7,
77,
-111,
8,
56,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-68,
-31,
-84,
26,
99,
-56,
32,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
48,
12,
-125,
-8,
62,
-68,
49,
13,
-24,
112,
-74,
-105,
52,
105,
-69,
12,
125,
99,
-128,
76,
-22,
-104,
-23,
21,
122,
-83,
-90,
-102,
56,
-21,
49,
-126,
-71,
124,
86,
47,
124,
106,
5,
95,
-10,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-77,
-33,
60,
-96,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
33,
-35,
-72,
28,
78,
51,
121,
-26,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 22, 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. | [
-127,
-52,
-36,
-68,
-88,
113,
-45,
29,
65,
-89,
103,
-47,
-81,
-38,
16,
127,
-115,
15,
119,
91,
-51,
-79,
55,
65,
114,
-45,
-37,
95,
49,
110,
-12,
57,
14,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
105,
20,
-114,
7,
-7,
77,
-111,
8,
56,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-68,
-31,
44,
-102,
99,
-56,
32,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
16,
14,
-125,
-8,
62,
-68,
49,
13,
-28,
112,
-74,
-105,
60,
105,
-69,
12,
125,
99,
-128,
76,
-22,
-40,
-23,
21,
122,
-83,
-90,
-102,
57,
-21,
48,
-126,
-71,
124,
84,
47,
124,
106,
5,
95,
-10,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-77,
-33,
124,
-88,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
33,
-35,
-72,
28,
78,
51,
121,
-26,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Cavanagh, J., did not participate due to her prior service as a member of the Attorney Grievance Commission. | [
-111,
-22,
-34,
-68,
-88,
-32,
50,
29,
64,
-93,
119,
-41,
-81,
-46,
0,
107,
60,
47,
66,
123,
-37,
52,
119,
72,
122,
-45,
-77,
84,
-13,
110,
-12,
120,
68,
48,
-102,
-43,
70,
-61,
75,
82,
-116,
39,
-40,
-51,
-16,
32,
32,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-106,
-93,
-20,
29,
104,
-56,
104,
91,
-83,
-64,
105,
20,
15,
127,
4,
19,
52,
-98,
3,
-40,
126,
16,
49,
1,
-12,
112,
-26,
-97,
116,
11,
-71,
-115,
85,
42,
1,
108,
-29,
40,
-29,
53,
122,
-99,
34,
-48,
25,
75,
97,
-110,
-3,
109,
22,
47,
60,
102,
69,
-36,
-26,
42,
-17,
-74,
-79,
90,
61,
-96,
-118,
-17,
-108,
26,
33,
-35,
-8,
126,
-60,
51,
89,
-20,
-110
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 15, 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. | [
-127,
-52,
-43,
-68,
-88,
112,
-45,
21,
65,
-93,
127,
-47,
-81,
-102,
20,
127,
61,
15,
101,
-37,
-35,
-79,
55,
65,
114,
-45,
-37,
-33,
49,
126,
-12,
56,
78,
-32,
-118,
-44,
70,
-55,
73,
24,
-114,
7,
121,
77,
-79,
8,
40,
-93,
30,
15,
17,
-68,
-29,
44,
-104,
99,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
48,
-114,
-125,
-8,
62,
-68,
48,
13,
-28,
112,
-74,
-105,
52,
97,
-69,
12,
93,
99,
-128,
108,
-18,
-8,
-24,
21,
122,
-81,
-93,
-38,
57,
-53,
33,
-126,
-67,
124,
116,
47,
124,
106,
5,
92,
-2,
-128,
-101,
-92,
-77,
-97,
124,
-96,
-87,
-21,
-102,
26,
33,
-107,
56,
92,
78,
55,
93,
-26,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 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,
120,
-44,
-68,
40,
112,
-13,
21,
65,
-93,
103,
-45,
-81,
-70,
4,
127,
-115,
15,
103,
91,
-51,
-75,
55,
65,
118,
-45,
-97,
95,
113,
110,
-28,
59,
78,
96,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
105,
24,
-114,
7,
-35,
77,
-111,
8,
40,
-93,
30,
15,
17,
-12,
-31,
44,
-104,
115,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-78,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
-98,
-125,
-16,
62,
-72,
49,
29,
-3,
112,
-10,
-105,
60,
97,
-69,
-104,
89,
99,
-127,
108,
-18,
89,
-88,
53,
122,
-81,
-94,
-54,
25,
-21,
32,
-110,
-69,
124,
118,
39,
124,
106,
21,
93,
-20,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-77,
95,
124,
-88,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
33,
-35,
56,
28,
78,
51,
89,
-26,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 15, 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.
Cavanagh, J., did not participate due to her prior relationship with Garan Lucow Miller, P.C. | [
-107,
-22,
-35,
-68,
-88,
-64,
-93,
61,
64,
-61,
119,
85,
-81,
-6,
0,
123,
-65,
47,
100,
123,
-38,
-74,
55,
64,
123,
-45,
-109,
-44,
-13,
110,
-12,
123,
13,
50,
-118,
-44,
70,
-53,
73,
120,
-114,
7,
89,
-51,
-47,
65,
48,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-74,
-77,
-84,
29,
98,
-24,
40,
121,
-19,
64,
-39,
2,
15,
127,
4,
19,
52,
-100,
35,
-40,
62,
-112,
-79,
5,
-28,
112,
-90,
-105,
116,
107,
-71,
9,
117,
107,
-127,
77,
-25,
60,
-24,
-95,
122,
-99,
39,
-40,
25,
107,
96,
-122,
-67,
124,
84,
39,
124,
110,
13,
28,
-28,
-118,
-49,
-28,
-71,
15,
124,
-80,
-128,
-17,
30,
50,
97,
-35,
-4,
92,
78,
49,
93,
-4,
-112
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 3, 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. | [
-127,
-52,
-43,
-68,
-88,
112,
-45,
23,
65,
-93,
127,
-47,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
45,
15,
101,
91,
95,
-79,
55,
97,
114,
-45,
-45,
-33,
115,
110,
-12,
56,
14,
-16,
-118,
-108,
70,
-63,
73,
80,
-114,
7,
89,
77,
-47,
10,
40,
-93,
30,
15,
17,
-68,
-31,
44,
-102,
115,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
-116,
-125,
-8,
62,
-68,
49,
13,
-19,
112,
-74,
-105,
52,
105,
-69,
12,
117,
99,
-128,
108,
-22,
56,
-23,
53,
122,
-81,
-93,
-102,
25,
-53,
33,
-126,
-71,
116,
118,
39,
124,
98,
21,
29,
-2,
-128,
-101,
-92,
-77,
-37,
60,
-96,
43,
-21,
-98,
18,
32,
-59,
56,
92,
78,
51,
93,
-10,
56
] |
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. | [
-111,
120,
-36,
-68,
-88,
112,
-13,
29,
65,
-93,
111,
-45,
-83,
-6,
-108,
127,
-115,
15,
119,
91,
-51,
-75,
55,
65,
114,
-45,
-97,
95,
49,
110,
-28,
57,
14,
96,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
105,
28,
-114,
7,
-7,
77,
-111,
8,
56,
-93,
30,
15,
17,
-4,
-31,
44,
24,
115,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
14,
-125,
-16,
62,
-72,
49,
29,
-24,
112,
-10,
-105,
60,
97,
-69,
-108,
89,
99,
-128,
108,
-18,
-39,
-88,
53,
122,
-81,
-90,
-104,
57,
-21,
48,
-126,
-69,
124,
86,
39,
124,
106,
5,
95,
-4,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-77,
95,
124,
-88,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
33,
-35,
56,
28,
78,
51,
89,
-26,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 12, 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. | [
-128,
-24,
-43,
-68,
-120,
112,
-45,
21,
65,
-89,
127,
-45,
-83,
-102,
20,
127,
-35,
15,
103,
-37,
-49,
-79,
55,
65,
114,
-13,
-37,
-33,
113,
110,
-12,
58,
78,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
73,
24,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
8,
40,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-35,
-29,
44,
-104,
99,
-56,
104,
-39,
61,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
20,
-128,
52,
-114,
-126,
-16,
62,
-68,
49,
13,
-20,
112,
-74,
-109,
52,
97,
-71,
-99,
93,
99,
-127,
44,
-29,
-7,
-21,
53,
90,
-83,
-90,
-104,
57,
-53,
33,
-126,
-69,
116,
54,
47,
124,
66,
-123,
77,
-66,
-126,
-117,
-92,
-77,
-97,
60,
-80,
-88,
-21,
-102,
50,
97,
-35,
120,
28,
78,
51,
121,
-42,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 15, 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. | [
-127,
-52,
-43,
-68,
-88,
112,
-45,
21,
65,
-93,
127,
-47,
-81,
-38,
20,
127,
-67,
15,
117,
-37,
-35,
-79,
55,
65,
114,
-45,
-41,
95,
49,
126,
-12,
56,
78,
-32,
-118,
-48,
70,
-55,
9,
24,
-114,
7,
121,
77,
-79,
8,
40,
-93,
30,
15,
17,
-68,
-29,
-84,
26,
99,
-56,
104,
-39,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
48,
-114,
-125,
-8,
62,
-68,
49,
13,
-28,
112,
-74,
-105,
52,
97,
-71,
12,
93,
99,
-128,
108,
-18,
-8,
-24,
21,
122,
-81,
-93,
-38,
57,
-53,
33,
-126,
-67,
124,
116,
47,
124,
106,
5,
92,
-2,
-128,
-101,
-92,
-77,
-97,
124,
-80,
-23,
-21,
-102,
18,
33,
-107,
56,
28,
78,
51,
93,
-18,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief. The motion to appoint counsel is DENIED.
Cavanagh, J., did not participate due to her prior service as a member of the Attorney Grievance Commission. | [
-111,
-22,
-50,
-84,
-118,
96,
58,
44,
65,
-45,
103,
-41,
-17,
-18,
24,
103,
126,
119,
67,
123,
83,
-76,
127,
104,
122,
-37,
-77,
-59,
-77,
110,
-12,
60,
64,
48,
-117,
-44,
78,
-125,
-51,
18,
14,
1,
-104,
-19,
-8,
3,
48,
107,
94,
15,
17,
-122,
-77,
-84,
57,
105,
-88,
105,
121,
53,
-64,
-72,
30,
-107,
127,
0,
49,
52,
30,
35,
-40,
46,
0,
-79,
0,
-32,
49,
-10,
-126,
112,
15,
-101,
-120,
68,
64,
1,
44,
-25,
-96,
-67,
38,
28,
-100,
38,
-45,
57,
107,
3,
-106,
-67,
125,
22,
109,
60,
-21,
77,
77,
100,
-118,
-81,
-106,
-95,
92,
53,
-116,
3,
-17,
-60,
48,
33,
-99,
-16,
126,
-57,
51,
-37,
-18,
-126
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 9, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Grand Traverse County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after the date of this order.
The application for leave to appeal remains pending. | [
85,
-14,
-2,
-104,
42,
96,
-16,
29,
65,
115,
103,
83,
-81,
-14,
20,
123,
27,
43,
109,
121,
-37,
-74,
55,
67,
30,
-13,
-105,
-33,
115,
77,
-76,
-8,
74,
-47,
10,
28,
-42,
-126,
111,
26,
70,
3,
-87,
-19,
81,
84,
40,
-77,
18,
14,
113,
110,
-32,
47,
56,
-29,
-56,
104,
-39,
-83,
81,
-31,
-77,
-115,
56,
-100,
-127,
-44,
-117,
-121,
96,
127,
25,
49,
0,
-8,
112,
-74,
-123,
60,
67,
59,
8,
12,
-26,
-127,
28,
-9,
-23,
-126,
-100,
122,
-33,
-93,
-119,
57,
-101,
104,
-108,
-69,
125,
18,
35,
-4,
70,
-123,
19,
44,
-128,
-50,
-96,
-89,
-97,
-19,
-126,
10,
-29,
52,
114,
113,
-52,
110,
124,
68,
59,
91,
-50,
112
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 20, 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. | [
-103,
-20,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-16,
-45,
31,
65,
-89,
63,
-41,
-81,
-14,
4,
127,
-84,
15,
119,
-37,
-37,
-78,
55,
65,
114,
-45,
-34,
93,
49,
110,
-12,
56,
14,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
73,
88,
-114,
7,
-39,
-51,
-111,
-70,
16,
35,
62,
15,
17,
-108,
-29,
44,
26,
99,
-56,
104,
-37,
-67,
-63,
-48,
-78,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
48,
-102,
-93,
-40,
126,
-104,
57,
13,
-24,
112,
-74,
-107,
52,
105,
-71,
12,
117,
106,
-127,
77,
-25,
-72,
-85,
19,
122,
-65,
39,
-110,
57,
-21,
33,
-126,
-67,
124,
54,
47,
124,
66,
-107,
92,
-18,
-94,
-113,
-92,
-73,
-37,
108,
-80,
-23,
-22,
-74,
18,
33,
-43,
56,
28,
70,
51,
77,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 20, 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. | [
-103,
-20,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-16,
-45,
31,
65,
-89,
63,
-41,
-81,
-14,
4,
127,
-84,
15,
119,
-37,
-37,
-78,
55,
65,
114,
-45,
-34,
93,
49,
110,
-12,
56,
14,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
73,
88,
-114,
7,
-39,
-51,
-111,
-70,
16,
35,
62,
15,
17,
-108,
-29,
44,
26,
99,
-56,
104,
-37,
-67,
-63,
-48,
-78,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
48,
-102,
-93,
-40,
126,
-104,
57,
13,
-24,
112,
-74,
-107,
52,
105,
-71,
12,
117,
106,
-127,
77,
-25,
-72,
-85,
19,
122,
-65,
39,
-110,
57,
-21,
33,
-126,
-67,
124,
54,
47,
124,
66,
-107,
92,
-18,
-94,
-113,
-92,
-73,
-37,
108,
-80,
-23,
-22,
-74,
18,
33,
-43,
56,
28,
70,
51,
77,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 4, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of People v. Masalmani (Docket No. 154773) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case. | [
-104,
96,
-4,
-100,
58,
96,
19,
-97,
65,
-109,
51,
81,
-65,
-46,
-108,
123,
9,
111,
101,
123,
-39,
-89,
7,
65,
98,
-13,
-45,
-36,
-70,
118,
-10,
126,
74,
96,
-118,
-44,
86,
-55,
121,
92,
-114,
7,
-49,
-51,
-47,
9,
0,
58,
24,
78,
49,
118,
-93,
108,
24,
67,
-24,
40,
-39,
60,
-35,
-32,
-110,
-115,
-1,
36,
-111,
36,
-98,
-122,
-40,
127,
-112,
17,
12,
-24,
116,
-90,
-111,
52,
35,
-5,
48,
96,
98,
-127,
89,
-1,
-39,
-22,
28,
122,
31,
36,
-126,
25,
-24,
-32,
-122,
-67,
116,
20,
38,
124,
66,
-115,
22,
46,
-62,
-49,
-92,
-77,
-114,
60,
-70,
-93,
-22,
23,
50,
101,
-36,
40,
92,
66,
51,
75,
-18,
26
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.
The application for leave to appeal the December 27, 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 motions for a writ of habeas corpus and for peremptory reversal are DENIED. | [
-111,
-16,
-4,
-84,
10,
-16,
-13,
-65,
-63,
-29,
111,
83,
-83,
-6,
-128,
127,
-115,
71,
117,
-5,
-37,
-77,
23,
-47,
114,
-45,
-109,
95,
-13,
-17,
-27,
50,
14,
112,
-102,
-44,
70,
-55,
-21,
28,
-114,
7,
-39,
-20,
-79,
26,
56,
-93,
30,
15,
49,
-50,
-29,
44,
24,
-61,
-56,
104,
91,
61,
-63,
-47,
-77,
13,
127,
20,
-128,
48,
-98,
-58,
80,
62,
44,
49,
25,
-21,
48,
-10,
-105,
124,
99,
-5,
-96,
1,
99,
-127,
-52,
-17,
25,
-86,
52,
74,
-81,
-90,
-109,
93,
74,
34,
-110,
-69,
61,
20,
47,
126,
78,
-123,
84,
110,
-126,
-50,
-92,
-75,
-98,
124,
-88,
-29,
-21,
20,
16,
49,
-115,
-72,
28,
70,
51,
123,
-28,
-78
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 28, 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.
BERNSTEIN, J., did not participate because he has a family member with an interest that could be affected by the proceeding. | [
-104,
104,
-35,
-104,
-86,
-32,
-69,
36,
64,
-29,
103,
81,
-83,
-6,
-108,
127,
13,
47,
100,
123,
-33,
-77,
23,
-55,
122,
-13,
-101,
95,
-15,
111,
-10,
122,
74,
96,
-118,
-43,
70,
-63,
111,
20,
-116,
7,
-39,
77,
-111,
66,
32,
35,
62,
15,
49,
-41,
-29,
44,
-104,
96,
-56,
40,
-35,
33,
-47,
-40,
-85,
14,
127,
4,
-96,
20,
-117,
-122,
-40,
62,
-112,
49,
0,
-19,
113,
38,
-109,
118,
73,
-7,
-103,
65,
99,
-127,
77,
-25,
56,
-85,
55,
104,
-97,
-89,
-40,
89,
75,
32,
-106,
-65,
116,
116,
43,
126,
110,
13,
84,
-84,
2,
-58,
-92,
-79,
26,
-12,
44,
-126,
-30,
-102,
18,
97,
-36,
-8,
28,
74,
51,
125,
-26,
-16
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 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,
-4,
-84,
10,
-32,
3,
28,
65,
-125,
119,
-47,
-81,
-14,
4,
127,
44,
87,
113,
123,
-37,
-77,
7,
80,
107,
-45,
-109,
87,
-73,
-49,
-28,
-72,
76,
-16,
-118,
-44,
70,
-62,
105,
24,
-114,
3,
-71,
109,
-15,
11,
56,
107,
30,
15,
49,
-52,
99,
46,
24,
104,
-56,
105,
-37,
61,
-63,
-48,
-85,
13,
126,
20,
-128,
20,
10,
3,
112,
127,
48,
49,
1,
-24,
48,
-74,
-125,
52,
105,
-69,
-120,
96,
66,
-127,
109,
-17,
121,
-88,
13,
90,
-97,
-92,
-110,
57,
107,
73,
-106,
-71,
93,
22,
36,
124,
110,
-124,
124,
44,
-62,
-1,
-92,
-73,
-118,
124,
-96,
-117,
-29,
-102,
18,
33,
-116,
114,
94,
66,
51,
87,
-2,
-112
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 11, 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, to sustain a conviction under MCL 750.145c(2), the prosecution must prove that the defendant acted for the purpose of producing or making child sexually abusive material; and (2) whether the evidence in this case was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for child sexually abusive activity, MCL 750.145c(2). 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 and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan 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. | [
112,
-14,
28,
-99,
42,
97,
48,
62,
83,
-61,
-11,
83,
-81,
-62,
4,
127,
75,
63,
84,
123,
-36,
-93,
102,
67,
-2,
-77,
-78,
-45,
51,
94,
-20,
118,
92,
-16,
-54,
21,
66,
-54,
-55,
94,
14,
-115,
-87,
-32,
113,
72,
36,
115,
56,
15,
49,
-34,
-29,
47,
28,
65,
-87,
104,
-55,
-75,
-47,
-91,
-101,
-91,
63,
54,
-93,
20,
-100,
-122,
-32,
59,
28,
49,
0,
-19,
48,
-74,
-122,
52,
75,
-70,
8,
33,
-30,
-125,
-112,
-27,
-35,
88,
28,
90,
-100,
-89,
-7,
41,
10,
108,
-74,
-71,
52,
84,
13,
126,
79,
5,
30,
108,
0,
-49,
-92,
-77,
-113,
104,
-106,
-120,
-29,
51,
18,
117,
-51,
118,
88,
71,
58,
89,
-42,
-14
] |
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.
Plaintiff is not required to pay an initial partial fee. However, for a complaint to be filed, within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit a copy of this order and refile the copy of the pleadings returned with this order . By doing this, plaintiff becomes responsible to pay the $ 400.00 fee ($ 375.00 filing fee + $ 25.00 EFS fee required by MCL 600.1986 ). Failure to comply with this order shall result in the complaint not being filed in this Court.
If plaintiff 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 $ 400.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.
Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8), plaintiff 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 plaintiff and return a copy of plaintiff's pleadings with this order. | [
-48,
-15,
-19,
-35,
43,
33,
11,
-102,
67,
83,
100,
87,
-25,
70,
0,
111,
-21,
123,
117,
121,
75,
-94,
103,
66,
-14,
-14,
-15,
-43,
59,
79,
-20,
-74,
72,
-24,
-94,
-44,
70,
-126,
-95,
30,
78,
3,
-103,
-31,
-15,
3,
32,
41,
2,
15,
49,
76,
-29,
44,
57,
73,
41,
44,
-35,
-87,
-64,
-75,
-77,
-113,
123,
5,
-96,
22,
26,
70,
80,
58,
-120,
49,
50,
-23,
58,
54,
-122,
116,
66,
-69,
-87,
108,
-32,
1,
-127,
-4,
-35,
-80,
31,
26,
-99,
-90,
-45,
120,
107,
4,
-74,
61,
116,
-112,
7,
126,
68,
20,
125,
44,
-61,
-50,
-108,
-77,
-113,
116,
-116,
-117,
-17,
6,
-48,
113,
-50,
-14,
88,
78,
57,
-37,
126,
-103
] |
By order of February 4, 2019, the defendant's former appellate counsel was directed to file a supplemental brief. On order of the Court, the brief having been received, the application for leave to appeal the February 28, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-112,
-24,
-36,
-116,
-120,
-32,
-5,
53,
64,
-21,
111,
83,
-81,
-6,
4,
127,
-35,
15,
69,
-5,
-33,
-75,
118,
65,
114,
-13,
-109,
-41,
-15,
110,
-26,
-70,
78,
112,
-118,
-43,
70,
-56,
105,
28,
-114,
5,
-103,
109,
-47,
65,
32,
-29,
126,
15,
49,
-36,
-31,
108,
24,
82,
-120,
104,
91,
61,
-47,
-112,
-110,
15,
63,
20,
-95,
20,
-104,
-62,
80,
63,
-104,
49,
9,
-19,
112,
-74,
-110,
116,
75,
-71,
-116,
97,
99,
0,
45,
-17,
29,
-86,
52,
88,
-65,
98,
-7,
25,
-53,
32,
-106,
-65,
124,
54,
39,
126,
75,
13,
29,
-20,
-126,
-18,
-124,
-77,
95,
44,
44,
-117,
-30,
18,
16,
96,
-107,
104,
28,
70,
51,
-5,
-58,
-106
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's May 10, 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,
32,
35,
30,
64,
115,
103,
-45,
-81,
-102,
-108,
127,
-50,
95,
113,
-39,
-18,
-77,
6,
64,
115,
-45,
-45,
95,
115,
-1,
101,
63,
76,
-22,
-38,
-107,
68,
-63,
-85,
86,
-114,
3,
25,
-27,
-47,
8,
48,
35,
30,
15,
53,
-60,
-29,
44,
26,
99,
-23,
40,
-33,
121,
-63,
88,
-103,
7,
111,
4,
-127,
116,
28,
65,
-40,
62,
-100,
17,
24,
-24,
119,
54,
-121,
116,
105,
-5,
44,
113,
-25,
-127,
76,
-1,
-103,
-86,
53,
10,
-115,
-90,
-101,
56,
-55,
35,
-106,
-67,
116,
54,
38,
-4,
79,
-99,
85,
-20,
0,
-17,
-96,
-77,
94,
92,
-88,
97,
-5,
18,
18,
32,
-51,
-8,
94,
74,
17,
59,
-18,
56
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 3, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment addressing the denial of the defendant's pretrial request for funds to pay for an independent DNA expert, and we REMAND this case to that court for reconsideration in light of People v. Kennedy (Docket No. 154445). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction. | [
-112,
-24,
-12,
60,
40,
-31,
-46,
28,
65,
-117,
103,
83,
-83,
114,
20,
123,
-7,
111,
103,
123,
-37,
-73,
87,
64,
114,
-13,
-78,
-36,
-13,
126,
-28,
122,
76,
96,
10,
-44,
70,
-54,
-23,
84,
-114,
5,
-7,
-51,
-47,
2,
48,
35,
94,
15,
17,
-34,
-29,
44,
27,
-62,
-24,
44,
91,
61,
-39,
-48,
-69,
13,
-1,
4,
-96,
53,
-98,
-27,
-8,
127,
-104,
17,
0,
-24,
48,
-74,
-105,
116,
103,
-69,
40,
99,
-30,
-127,
108,
-17,
89,
-70,
31,
26,
-65,
-89,
-47,
49,
73,
97,
-122,
-3,
117,
20,
45,
124,
102,
13,
20,
-4,
-118,
-69,
-96,
-77,
-53,
60,
-68,
-125,
-21,
-107,
18,
113,
-35,
40,
92,
66,
49,
75,
-50,
-112
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 25, 2017 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 provision in MCL 777.19(1) that the sentencing guidelines only apply to an attempt to commit an enumerated offense "if the attempted violation is a felony" requires that the offense the defendant attempted to commit be a felony, or the attempt conviction itself be a felony, for purposes of scoring Offense Variable (OV) 13, MCL 777.43(1)(c). 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 and the Criminal Defense Attorneys 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. | [
116,
-30,
-36,
-99,
42,
97,
48,
-66,
67,
-61,
-11,
83,
-81,
-26,
4,
127,
125,
127,
84,
123,
-35,
-85,
102,
-61,
-73,
-77,
-10,
-45,
50,
79,
-2,
-14,
25,
-16,
-54,
21,
70,
-118,
-127,
94,
-114,
-115,
-119,
-31,
-15,
72,
36,
99,
56,
15,
49,
-34,
-30,
47,
24,
73,
-87,
104,
-55,
-75,
-63,
-15,
-101,
13,
-69,
52,
-94,
20,
-103,
-124,
-16,
59,
28,
53,
0,
-23,
50,
-74,
-121,
52,
123,
-69,
12,
107,
-30,
-128,
80,
-59,
-35,
-104,
28,
122,
28,
-89,
-39,
57,
10,
-20,
-106,
-65,
52,
116,
14,
126,
78,
4,
31,
108,
0,
-49,
-96,
-77,
-97,
112,
-60,
-85,
-29,
55,
16,
117,
-52,
102,
88,
104,
48,
25,
-42,
-112
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 9, 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. | [
-100,
72,
-44,
-116,
8,
-32,
-13,
29,
65,
-89,
111,
-45,
-83,
-6,
20,
127,
-67,
15,
118,
-37,
-33,
-79,
119,
-48,
122,
-13,
-109,
94,
-9,
111,
-28,
58,
14,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
105,
24,
-114,
7,
-99,
77,
-47,
10,
40,
107,
30,
15,
17,
-42,
-29,
44,
24,
99,
-56,
104,
-37,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
-108,
-128,
20,
-104,
-57,
-56,
127,
-104,
49,
13,
-8,
112,
-90,
-105,
52,
41,
-69,
25,
113,
15,
-128,
108,
-18,
-104,
-85,
53,
90,
-65,
-90,
-102,
57,
-21,
97,
-110,
-71,
116,
54,
47,
124,
75,
-115,
92,
-82,
-126,
-33,
-92,
-73,
27,
28,
-96,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
97,
-59,
120,
28,
76,
55,
93,
-18,
-80
] |
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 application for leave to appeal the March 30, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered.
We DIRECT the Genesee County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after the date of this order.
The application for leave to appeal remains pending. | [
80,
-48,
-4,
-100,
-86,
97,
115,
28,
67,
115,
-89,
83,
-81,
-14,
23,
121,
27,
111,
5,
-5,
-55,
-73,
54,
35,
58,
-14,
-65,
-33,
119,
77,
-12,
-1,
10,
113,
10,
-100,
-58,
-124,
-51,
84,
-124,
3,
-55,
108,
113,
73,
60,
43,
86,
14,
53,
110,
-29,
46,
56,
96,
-24,
104,
-39,
-81,
1,
-31,
-77,
-115,
-4,
-68,
-128,
37,
27,
-125,
64,
63,
48,
53,
-64,
-8,
112,
-78,
-123,
124,
67,
-71,
32,
70,
-61,
-127,
28,
-17,
-7,
-125,
12,
-6,
-51,
-93,
-119,
121,
-37,
32,
-112,
-69,
117,
80,
35,
-66,
78,
-59,
95,
44,
-122,
-58,
-90,
-105,
-33,
-83,
2,
-86,
-29,
36,
114,
49,
-59,
110,
88,
76,
49,
91,
-34,
80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 23, 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,
-68,
10,
96,
3,
28,
65,
-125,
119,
-47,
-81,
-14,
4,
127,
-83,
87,
99,
123,
-39,
-77,
23,
64,
99,
-38,
-109,
95,
55,
-49,
-28,
56,
76,
-48,
-118,
-44,
68,
-62,
105,
24,
-114,
3,
-39,
109,
-15,
9,
56,
75,
-98,
15,
49,
-36,
99,
46,
24,
96,
-56,
105,
-37,
61,
-63,
-47,
-85,
13,
110,
20,
-128,
20,
8,
99,
112,
127,
-72,
49,
1,
-24,
48,
-74,
-121,
52,
97,
-69,
-119,
97,
66,
-127,
77,
-17,
121,
-72,
45,
90,
-97,
-90,
-46,
56,
107,
69,
-106,
-71,
125,
22,
36,
124,
110,
5,
92,
108,
-62,
-17,
-92,
-77,
-114,
125,
-96,
-53,
-29,
-110,
16,
33,
-99,
-6,
92,
66,
51,
95,
-2,
-48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 10, 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. | [
-103,
-20,
-35,
-84,
-120,
-32,
-29,
29,
64,
-25,
127,
-45,
-81,
-46,
-124,
127,
-84,
15,
118,
-37,
-33,
-77,
55,
-64,
122,
-45,
-37,
-35,
51,
110,
-12,
56,
14,
-30,
-118,
-108,
70,
-63,
73,
80,
-114,
7,
-103,
-115,
-111,
64,
40,
99,
30,
15,
17,
-108,
-29,
44,
26,
98,
-56,
44,
-37,
41,
-63,
-40,
-106,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
36,
-97,
-29,
88,
126,
-104,
25,
0,
-20,
112,
54,
-109,
54,
105,
-69,
13,
113,
111,
-127,
76,
-30,
60,
-85,
29,
90,
-83,
38,
-104,
57,
-53,
32,
-106,
-67,
116,
54,
39,
126,
111,
13,
77,
-18,
0,
79,
-90,
-73,
27,
124,
-80,
105,
-21,
-74,
-110,
33,
-43,
120,
92,
78,
55,
93,
-18,
-72
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 9, 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). | [
-108,
-16,
-68,
-84,
-118,
-32,
-77,
30,
65,
-41,
55,
83,
-83,
-6,
-124,
127,
63,
79,
117,
-5,
-39,
-79,
23,
81,
99,
-37,
-110,
-33,
-73,
-17,
-28,
48,
76,
-16,
-118,
-44,
70,
-64,
105,
24,
-114,
71,
25,
109,
-15,
11,
56,
75,
30,
15,
49,
-33,
99,
47,
29,
96,
-23,
105,
-37,
45,
-63,
-48,
-125,
-115,
109,
20,
-128,
20,
-114,
-90,
80,
127,
16,
49,
1,
-24,
54,
-74,
-109,
52,
97,
-69,
40,
49,
66,
-127,
77,
-17,
24,
-88,
13,
94,
-99,
-90,
-38,
25,
107,
-95,
-106,
-71,
117,
22,
44,
124,
78,
-108,
117,
-84,
-54,
-33,
-92,
-77,
-101,
125,
-96,
-31,
-22,
-109,
18,
33,
-116,
-8,
94,
66,
51,
95,
-2,
-48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 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,
-68,
10,
96,
3,
28,
65,
-125,
103,
-47,
-17,
-10,
4,
127,
12,
95,
103,
123,
-37,
-93,
23,
64,
-13,
-14,
-109,
95,
51,
78,
-28,
56,
76,
120,
-118,
-43,
70,
-64,
109,
24,
-114,
3,
57,
109,
-15,
11,
56,
75,
30,
15,
49,
-50,
-29,
46,
24,
96,
-56,
104,
-37,
61,
-63,
81,
-85,
13,
126,
20,
-128,
20,
-120,
3,
112,
126,
-72,
49,
1,
-23,
48,
54,
-125,
52,
73,
-69,
-120,
97,
66,
-127,
76,
-19,
89,
-88,
15,
88,
-97,
-92,
-46,
57,
107,
-19,
-106,
-67,
93,
54,
44,
124,
78,
-124,
85,
108,
-62,
-33,
-124,
-77,
-118,
124,
32,
-117,
-21,
-126,
16,
33,
-100,
-6,
94,
66,
51,
87,
-2,
-48
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 29, 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,
-120,
-32,
-13,
21,
64,
-25,
103,
-45,
-83,
-14,
-124,
127,
-81,
15,
118,
91,
-33,
-77,
55,
-56,
114,
-45,
-101,
93,
119,
110,
-12,
58,
14,
96,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
75,
88,
-114,
7,
-99,
13,
-111,
65,
40,
35,
62,
15,
17,
-76,
-29,
44,
-100,
98,
-56,
104,
-37,
41,
-63,
-48,
-94,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
16,
-113,
-29,
-48,
126,
-72,
49,
12,
-4,
112,
-74,
-105,
116,
105,
-69,
-99,
113,
111,
-127,
76,
-21,
93,
-86,
53,
74,
-67,
34,
-110,
25,
-53,
33,
-106,
-71,
116,
22,
39,
126,
110,
13,
93,
-2,
34,
-49,
-92,
-77,
91,
60,
-72,
-23,
-21,
-110,
18,
33,
-35,
120,
28,
76,
55,
89,
-26,
56
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 24, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after the date of this order. In particular, the prosecuting attorney shall address whether the trial court erred in vacating the defendant's original sentence and imposing a sentence of "Life" in an "administrative fashion" pursuant to the trial court's "Order Granting (In-Part) Motion for Re-Sentencing" signed on September 4, 1987 in Case No. 86-006219-FC.
The application for leave to appeal remains pending. | [
-112,
-14,
-33,
-100,
-86,
-96,
112,
28,
64,
83,
103,
83,
-81,
-14,
19,
123,
43,
107,
101,
121,
80,
-73,
119,
34,
126,
-13,
-101,
94,
59,
79,
-12,
-1,
14,
96,
10,
-100,
68,
-60,
-51,
92,
-52,
-121,
-37,
44,
81,
11,
60,
35,
54,
14,
49,
70,
-30,
46,
60,
65,
-55,
104,
-39,
-85,
65,
-63,
-69,
-115,
-2,
52,
-127,
0,
-101,
-121,
-40,
127,
-104,
57,
2,
-24,
114,
-78,
-121,
124,
97,
-69,
32,
0,
67,
-127,
-107,
-17,
-71,
-69,
28,
122,
-35,
-89,
-103,
25,
91,
102,
-124,
-65,
126,
52,
38,
-4,
110,
-59,
87,
44,
-122,
-58,
-92,
-77,
-49,
-3,
-110,
-86,
-29,
36,
114,
97,
-60,
110,
86,
103,
49,
127,
-12,
-16
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 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,
-118,
-32,
-45,
29,
64,
-89,
47,
-45,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
118,
91,
-33,
-73,
119,
-55,
114,
-13,
-45,
95,
51,
110,
-25,
58,
78,
112,
-102,
-107,
70,
-64,
105,
92,
-114,
7,
25,
77,
-111,
74,
40,
35,
62,
15,
17,
-10,
-29,
44,
28,
66,
-56,
96,
-33,
41,
-63,
-48,
-74,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
-114,
-58,
-64,
126,
-72,
57,
12,
-19,
112,
-90,
-105,
116,
73,
-69,
-104,
81,
107,
-127,
12,
-21,
8,
-86,
53,
120,
-81,
38,
-112,
25,
-53,
32,
-106,
-67,
52,
54,
47,
126,
110,
13,
87,
-2,
-30,
-49,
-90,
-77,
-101,
60,
40,
-23,
-21,
22,
18,
97,
-59,
120,
92,
78,
55,
121,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 29, 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,
-120,
-32,
-13,
21,
64,
-25,
103,
-45,
-83,
-14,
-124,
127,
-81,
15,
118,
91,
-33,
-77,
55,
-56,
114,
-45,
-101,
93,
119,
110,
-12,
58,
14,
96,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
75,
88,
-114,
7,
-99,
13,
-111,
65,
40,
35,
62,
15,
17,
-76,
-29,
44,
-100,
98,
-56,
104,
-37,
41,
-63,
-48,
-94,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
16,
-113,
-29,
-48,
126,
-72,
49,
12,
-4,
112,
-74,
-105,
116,
105,
-69,
-99,
113,
111,
-127,
76,
-21,
93,
-86,
53,
74,
-67,
34,
-110,
25,
-53,
33,
-106,
-71,
116,
22,
39,
126,
110,
13,
93,
-2,
34,
-49,
-92,
-77,
91,
60,
-72,
-23,
-21,
-110,
18,
33,
-35,
120,
28,
76,
55,
89,
-26,
56
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
CAVANAGH , J., did not participate due to her prior service as a member of the Attorney Grievance Commission. | [
-111,
-22,
-34,
-68,
-88,
-32,
50,
29,
64,
-93,
119,
-41,
-81,
-46,
0,
107,
60,
47,
66,
123,
-37,
52,
119,
72,
122,
-45,
-77,
84,
-13,
110,
-12,
120,
68,
48,
-102,
-43,
70,
-61,
75,
82,
-116,
39,
-40,
-51,
-16,
32,
32,
35,
30,
15,
17,
-106,
-93,
-20,
29,
104,
-56,
104,
91,
-83,
-64,
105,
20,
15,
127,
4,
19,
52,
-98,
3,
-40,
126,
16,
49,
1,
-12,
112,
-26,
-97,
116,
11,
-71,
-115,
85,
42,
1,
108,
-29,
40,
-29,
53,
122,
-99,
34,
-48,
25,
75,
97,
-110,
-3,
109,
22,
47,
60,
102,
69,
-36,
-26,
42,
-17,
-74,
-79,
90,
61,
-96,
-118,
-17,
-108,
26,
33,
-35,
-8,
126,
-60,
51,
89,
-20,
-110
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 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. | [
-107,
76,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
-13,
29,
64,
-25,
111,
-45,
-81,
-46,
-108,
127,
-2,
15,
116,
-37,
-37,
-77,
23,
96,
114,
-45,
-101,
92,
51,
110,
-12,
56,
14,
-30,
-118,
-44,
70,
-63,
75,
80,
-114,
7,
-103,
77,
-111,
64,
40,
98,
62,
15,
17,
-108,
-29,
108,
-100,
98,
-56,
108,
-37,
45,
-63,
-40,
-122,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
52,
-118,
-29,
-40,
126,
-72,
49,
13,
-28,
112,
-74,
-105,
52,
97,
-69,
13,
113,
111,
-127,
12,
-25,
-4,
-86,
21,
122,
-67,
38,
-102,
57,
-53,
33,
6,
-67,
116,
20,
39,
126,
110,
13,
93,
-2,
2,
-33,
-92,
-79,
27,
60,
-72,
-23,
-21,
-78,
18,
32,
-43,
120,
92,
76,
55,
125,
-18,
48
] |
On order of the Court, the motion for rehearing is considered, and it is DENIED. | [
-112,
-3,
-51,
-84,
-118,
97,
-112,
-97,
65,
-29,
119,
-13,
-19,
-14,
-124,
125,
-66,
15,
116,
123,
93,
-78,
23,
73,
114,
-45,
-46,
95,
-71,
-18,
-12,
58,
76,
-8,
-6,
-43,
102,
-63,
-57,
80,
-122,
37,
-103,
-51,
-79,
24,
48,
33,
94,
31,
21,
-57,
-29,
12,
29,
-62,
-55,
104,
95,
61,
-31,
89,
-98,
7,
125,
0,
-128,
54,
-98,
71,
-40,
46,
16,
17,
17,
-24,
83,
-12,
-123,
80,
105,
-5,
44,
-85,
107,
3,
109,
-22,
-72,
-86,
119,
8,
-67,
-94,
-109,
16,
75,
33,
-106,
-5,
116,
22,
14,
-2,
15,
-107,
93,
-18,
10,
-17,
-74,
-77,
-33,
61,
-88,
97,
-30,
-112,
16,
52,
-59,
-16,
94,
74,
51,
-37,
-98,
-78
] |
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 the appeal to continue, 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 as acknowledgement of his responsibility to pay the $375.00 filing fee. Failure to do so shall result in the appeal being administratively dismissed.
If appellant timely complies with this order, 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. That 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,
67,
-13,
102,
87,
-17,
70,
4,
127,
-21,
63,
117,
121,
79,
-77,
103,
97,
-78,
-5,
-103,
-43,
-77,
111,
-20,
-73,
8,
-15,
-86,
-108,
70,
-126,
-95,
92,
-50,
-125,
-103,
-59,
-15,
3,
32,
97,
10,
14,
49,
86,
-29,
44,
25,
73,
8,
44,
-39,
35,
-64,
-79,
-77,
-115,
123,
12,
-96,
20,
27,
-60,
80,
62,
-104,
53,
0,
-24,
114,
54,
-122,
116,
74,
-69,
-87,
104,
-30,
1,
-31,
-2,
-107,
-96,
31,
-102,
-99,
-90,
-45,
-8,
74,
108,
-106,
61,
116,
-112,
7,
126,
76,
4,
117,
44,
-125,
-50,
-44,
-77,
-113,
124,
-116,
-118,
-17,
21,
-16,
113,
-49,
-14,
88,
-50,
57,
-37,
-10,
-104
] |
On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to disqualify all seven Justices from participating in the decision of this case is DENIED pursuant to the rule of necessity. United States v. Will , 449 U.S. 200, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). The motion to stay or hold in abeyance is DENIED as moot. | [
-108,
120,
-16,
124,
10,
33,
16,
-97,
-63,
-96,
119,
-45,
-19,
90,
-44,
117,
-65,
111,
117,
121,
117,
-78,
14,
-63,
119,
-13,
-55,
-35,
-73,
-25,
-9,
127,
76,
-24,
-38,
-41,
70,
-53,
-55,
92,
-114,
13,
-102,
101,
-15,
-46,
48,
115,
90,
-101,
5,
86,
-29,
46,
24,
-63,
-24,
104,
91,
53,
-32,
-103,
-66,
-123,
111,
16,
-109,
39,
-102,
-124,
-40,
126,
28,
16,
29,
-6,
51,
-10,
19,
84,
97,
-5,
32,
99,
99,
-127,
104,
-18,
-68,
-87,
102,
10,
-115,
-122,
-38,
40,
104,
9,
-74,
-3,
120,
20,
38,
118,
103,
-115,
94,
-84,
74,
-49,
-10,
-95,
-113,
125,
-116,
-127,
-21,
35,
16,
49,
-52,
-8,
28,
-61,
19,
19,
-124,
-108
] |
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.
Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court an initial partial filing fee of $8.00, which is 50 percent of his average monthly deposits for the past twelve months. Appellant must also submit a copy of this order with the payment and must refile the pleadings that are being returned with this order as acknowledgement of his responsibility to pay the balance of the filing fee. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal being administratively dismissed.
If appellant timely complies with this order, 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. That 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. | [
-48,
-16,
-19,
-36,
11,
97,
11,
-102,
67,
-45,
102,
87,
-17,
70,
4,
127,
-29,
63,
117,
121,
79,
-93,
103,
67,
-78,
-14,
-127,
-43,
59,
111,
-20,
-74,
76,
-7,
-22,
-108,
70,
-126,
-127,
92,
78,
-125,
-103,
-59,
-15,
3,
32,
41,
2,
15,
49,
70,
-29,
44,
57,
73,
8,
44,
-39,
35,
-64,
-79,
-77,
-115,
127,
13,
-79,
22,
26,
-57,
80,
62,
-104,
49,
34,
-24,
122,
54,
-122,
116,
74,
-69,
-87,
104,
-30,
1,
-63,
-4,
-99,
-80,
31,
26,
-99,
-90,
-45,
-8,
107,
44,
-74,
61,
116,
-112,
7,
126,
76,
20,
125,
44,
-125,
-114,
-44,
-77,
-113,
124,
-116,
-118,
-17,
4,
-16,
113,
-50,
-14,
88,
78,
57,
-37,
-2,
-104
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 27, 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. The denial is without prejudice to the defendant's right to file a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to MCR Subchapter 6.500 that may include his claim that the prosecution failed to give timely notice that the defendant would be subject to a 25-year mandatory minimum under MCL 769.12(1)(a). See MCL 769.13(1) ; People v. Hornsby , 251 Mich. App. 462, 472, 650 N.W.2d 700 (2002) ; People v. Ellis , 224 Mich. App. 752, 755, 569 N.W.2d 917 (1997). | [
20,
-31,
-36,
-68,
-118,
32,
51,
-98,
65,
-29,
39,
-45,
-81,
-42,
-124,
127,
127,
123,
85,
123,
89,
-93,
23,
98,
114,
-77,
-109,
-35,
51,
79,
-28,
-72,
12,
112,
10,
-76,
70,
-54,
-59,
82,
-114,
5,
25,
-17,
-15,
8,
32,
123,
24,
15,
49,
-36,
99,
46,
25,
72,
-87,
40,
-37,
-83,
-63,
-16,
-69,
13,
127,
52,
-94,
52,
-118,
-25,
112,
127,
28,
49,
17,
-24,
112,
-74,
-121,
52,
105,
-69,
-84,
102,
98,
-127,
93,
-17,
-7,
-72,
31,
90,
-99,
-89,
-6,
24,
75,
97,
-106,
-65,
116,
52,
36,
-4,
111,
5,
28,
44,
-126,
-49,
-92,
-79,
-37,
124,
32,
-53,
-29,
-109,
-110,
113,
-116,
122,
94,
98,
51,
83,
-2,
-108
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 21, 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. | [
-99,
104,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
-45,
29,
64,
-89,
103,
-45,
-81,
-6,
4,
127,
-115,
15,
118,
91,
-49,
-77,
87,
-55,
114,
-13,
-45,
95,
51,
110,
-27,
58,
78,
112,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
111,
28,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
72,
40,
43,
62,
15,
17,
-74,
-29,
108,
28,
98,
-56,
104,
-35,
41,
-63,
81,
-126,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
-102,
-60,
-64,
126,
-104,
49,
8,
-3,
112,
-90,
-105,
116,
73,
-71,
-104,
81,
107,
-127,
12,
-21,
-104,
-85,
53,
120,
-81,
-94,
-112,
25,
-53,
32,
-106,
-67,
52,
54,
47,
126,
42,
-123,
85,
-18,
34,
-49,
-92,
-77,
91,
124,
-88,
-23,
-6,
-110,
18,
97,
-35,
-8,
28,
76,
51,
123,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 7, 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. | [
-40,
108,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
-13,
29,
64,
-89,
103,
-45,
-83,
-6,
20,
127,
-83,
15,
102,
-37,
-33,
-77,
23,
-63,
114,
-13,
-37,
95,
51,
110,
-11,
58,
78,
112,
-118,
-107,
70,
-63,
77,
90,
-114,
7,
-103,
77,
-111,
72,
40,
107,
62,
15,
17,
-106,
-29,
108,
-104,
98,
-56,
104,
-39,
-67,
-63,
-40,
-126,
15,
125,
4,
0,
48,
-97,
-62,
-64,
126,
-104,
48,
12,
-4,
112,
38,
-111,
116,
105,
-69,
-99,
81,
107,
-127,
12,
-29,
40,
-85,
21,
120,
-81,
38,
-110,
57,
75,
32,
-106,
-67,
116,
118,
47,
124,
74,
-115,
93,
-2,
34,
-49,
-90,
-73,
-37,
60,
40,
105,
-22,
-106,
18,
97,
-43,
-8,
92,
76,
51,
121,
-26,
-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 questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. | [
-100,
104,
-35,
-68,
-118,
-32,
-45,
29,
64,
-25,
103,
-45,
-81,
-6,
-124,
127,
-83,
15,
118,
91,
-33,
-73,
119,
-55,
114,
-13,
-45,
95,
115,
110,
-11,
56,
78,
112,
-118,
-108,
70,
-63,
111,
24,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-111,
72,
40,
43,
62,
15,
17,
-74,
-29,
108,
28,
98,
-56,
104,
-35,
41,
-63,
-47,
-126,
15,
125,
4,
-128,
20,
-117,
-58,
-64,
126,
-104,
49,
12,
-19,
112,
-74,
-105,
116,
105,
-69,
24,
81,
107,
-127,
12,
-17,
-56,
-86,
53,
120,
-81,
34,
-46,
25,
-53,
32,
-106,
-65,
116,
54,
47,
126,
10,
13,
85,
-2,
34,
-49,
-92,
-73,
91,
60,
-88,
-23,
-5,
50,
18,
97,
-35,
-8,
92,
72,
55,
123,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 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,
76,
-35,
-68,
-86,
-32,
115,
29,
65,
-89,
111,
-45,
-83,
-6,
-108,
127,
-67,
15,
117,
91,
-55,
-79,
23,
65,
114,
-45,
-37,
93,
-77,
110,
-12,
56,
14,
-32,
-102,
-44,
70,
-63,
105,
16,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
24,
56,
99,
62,
15,
17,
-107,
-29,
44,
26,
98,
-56,
40,
-37,
-91,
-47,
-48,
-126,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
52,
-118,
-61,
-40,
127,
-72,
49,
13,
-24,
112,
-90,
-107,
116,
105,
-69,
4,
117,
111,
-127,
76,
-22,
-40,
-85,
53,
122,
-67,
38,
-102,
56,
-21,
33,
-126,
-67,
124,
86,
39,
126,
106,
5,
92,
-18,
34,
-49,
38,
-73,
91,
60,
-72,
-23,
-21,
-78,
26,
97,
-35,
-8,
92,
78,
51,
109,
-2,
56
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 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. | [
-103,
104,
-35,
-68,
-120,
-16,
-13,
31,
65,
-25,
111,
-45,
-81,
-6,
-124,
127,
31,
15,
117,
91,
-33,
-79,
119,
72,
126,
-45,
-101,
95,
-79,
110,
-28,
56,
10,
112,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
-21,
88,
-114,
7,
-35,
-115,
-47,
8,
40,
-94,
62,
15,
17,
-108,
-29,
44,
24,
96,
-56,
104,
-37,
45,
-47,
-47,
-74,
15,
124,
4,
-128,
52,
-101,
-29,
-48,
126,
-104,
49,
29,
-3,
112,
-74,
-105,
52,
105,
-69,
25,
113,
35,
-127,
108,
-17,
93,
-86,
61,
106,
-65,
-94,
-46,
25,
-21,
32,
-110,
-65,
125,
52,
37,
126,
110,
-123,
92,
-18,
-126,
-97,
-92,
-77,
83,
124,
-72,
-23,
-21,
-102,
-102,
33,
-59,
56,
28,
70,
51,
125,
-26,
16
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 27, 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. | [
-115,
104,
-44,
-100,
-86,
-32,
-13,
29,
64,
-89,
111,
-45,
-81,
-6,
20,
127,
-115,
15,
117,
-37,
-49,
-77,
23,
-56,
122,
-13,
-97,
94,
-13,
-18,
-12,
58,
10,
-16,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
107,
28,
-114,
7,
-39,
77,
-47,
24,
40,
43,
126,
15,
17,
-106,
-29,
44,
24,
98,
-56,
104,
-37,
45,
-63,
-48,
-110,
15,
125,
4,
-126,
20,
-102,
-57,
-48,
126,
-104,
49,
13,
-8,
112,
-74,
-105,
60,
73,
-69,
28,
81,
103,
-127,
76,
-17,
-36,
-86,
53,
122,
-65,
-94,
-110,
57,
-53,
33,
-110,
-71,
52,
54,
47,
126,
78,
-123,
84,
-82,
-126,
-49,
-92,
-73,
19,
60,
-72,
-87,
-21,
-102,
18,
97,
-51,
56,
28,
78,
51,
99,
-26,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 19, 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. The motion to remand is DENIED. | [
-108,
112,
-44,
-116,
-118,
-32,
-13,
-99,
65,
-57,
47,
-13,
-83,
-6,
16,
127,
13,
79,
117,
-5,
-50,
-73,
23,
81,
114,
-45,
-45,
-33,
123,
-18,
-28,
58,
78,
-16,
-118,
-44,
70,
-63,
-23,
24,
-114,
7,
-39,
-19,
-15,
24,
56,
35,
62,
15,
49,
-42,
-29,
44,
24,
99,
-24,
104,
91,
57,
-63,
-39,
-126,
15,
109,
20,
-127,
52,
-114,
-58,
120,
126,
-76,
49,
9,
-24,
112,
-10,
-105,
116,
97,
-69,
13,
97,
99,
-127,
77,
-17,
-72,
-86,
53,
122,
-83,
-90,
-101,
57,
75,
99,
-106,
-71,
116,
54,
39,
124,
78,
-123,
85,
-20,
2,
-49,
-92,
-79,
-49,
60,
-96,
-23,
-29,
-109,
18,
97,
-51,
-8,
28,
78,
51,
123,
-2,
-80
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 28, 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,
-36,
-84,
-86,
-32,
-13,
21,
65,
-25,
127,
-45,
-83,
-6,
-108,
127,
-67,
15,
116,
91,
-35,
-79,
23,
-55,
122,
-13,
-97,
94,
-9,
111,
-12,
58,
14,
-16,
-102,
-108,
70,
-63,
107,
24,
-116,
7,
-35,
77,
-47,
8,
56,
99,
62,
15,
49,
-106,
-29,
44,
26,
98,
-56,
104,
-37,
45,
-47,
-48,
-78,
15,
105,
4,
-128,
20,
-117,
-59,
-48,
126,
-112,
49,
13,
-8,
112,
-90,
-105,
116,
105,
-69,
-124,
81,
103,
-127,
108,
-18,
89,
-86,
53,
122,
-65,
38,
-102,
25,
-53,
33,
-110,
-67,
116,
22,
39,
126,
110,
13,
92,
-18,
-126,
-49,
-92,
-73,
91,
60,
-72,
-23,
-21,
-102,
26,
33,
-35,
120,
28,
74,
55,
125,
-26,
-72
] |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 30, 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 appoint counsel and the motion to abey are DENIED. | [
-108,
-16,
-4,
-84,
-118,
112,
-77,
-100,
65,
67,
103,
83,
-17,
-70,
0,
127,
43,
79,
117,
-5,
-55,
-75,
23,
81,
115,
-45,
-109,
-33,
-65,
-49,
-28,
-71,
76,
-16,
-118,
-44,
70,
-55,
-23,
20,
-114,
7,
-72,
-19,
-15,
9,
48,
11,
30,
15,
49,
-34,
-13,
45,
29,
96,
-23,
104,
-37,
45,
-63,
-48,
-109,
-115,
109,
52,
-127,
48,
-118,
-121,
80,
126,
-80,
49,
17,
-24,
48,
-74,
-105,
52,
99,
-69,
40,
49,
70,
-127,
77,
-17,
24,
-88,
13,
26,
-100,
-90,
-37,
25,
107,
35,
-110,
-71,
117,
18,
44,
126,
78,
-123,
117,
44,
-62,
-49,
-128,
-79,
-101,
125,
-88,
-119,
-22,
-109,
18,
33,
-51,
-8,
92,
78,
51,
71,
-2,
-16
] |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.