Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court considered applications for leave to appeal in consolidated cases arising from claims against state officials and agencies. The Court denied review because it was not persuaded that the questions presented warranted review, and Justice Clement did not participate due to prior involvement as the Governor’s chief legal counsel.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Michigan Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal after its decision in Mays v. Governor.
Holdings
- The Michigan Supreme Court denied the applications for leave to appeal because it was not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by the Court.
Key quotations
“it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.” (at 3)
Factual background
The source opinion contains no substantive factual findings; it addresses only whether the Michigan Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal in two cases involving claims against state officials and agencies.
Procedural history
The applications challenged January 24, 2019 judgments of the Michigan Court of Appeals. On July 2, 2019, the Michigan Supreme Court held the applications in abeyance pending Mays v. Governor. After deciding Mays on July 29, 2020, the Court again considered these applications and denied leave to appeal.