Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court denied Anthony Hart’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s July 29, 2020 order. Justice Clement dissented, arguing that the Court should order briefing and schedule argument concerning whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to decide the case when the defendant had not filed an application for leave to appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Michigan Supreme Court should reconsider its July 29, 2020 order.
- Whether the alleged failure to file an application for leave to appeal created a subject-matter-jurisdiction defect or a personal-jurisdiction defect that could be waived.
- Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to dispose of the case when the defendant had not filed an application for leave to appeal.
Key quotations
“the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 29, 2020 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration of our previous order is warranted.” (at 1)
Factual background
The dispute concerned the jurisdictional effect of the defendant's failure to file an application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals. Plaintiff argued that the Court of Appeals therefore lacked jurisdiction and that he had not received a meaningful opportunity to argue against the grant of leave. Justice Clement's dissent stated that plaintiff could have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under MCR 7.211(C)(2)(a).
Procedural history
The matter originated in the Michigan Court of Claims under docket number 16-000212-MM and proceeded to the Michigan Court of Appeals under docket number 338171. The Michigan Supreme Court had previously entered an order on July 29, 2020. Plaintiff sought reconsideration, arguing that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction because the defendant had not filed an application for leave to appeal; the Supreme Court denied reconsideration.