AMENDMENT OF RULE 7.211 OF MICHIGAN COURT RULES, 2004-24 (Mich. 2006)

Amendment of Rule 7.211 of the Michigan Court Rules.

ADM File No. 2004-24.Supreme Court of Michigan.
January 31, 2006.

On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following amendment of Rule 7.211 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective May 1, 2006.

ICLE Editor’s Note:

[Italicized, bracketed text] indicates text that has been deleted.

Bold text indicates new text.

Rule 7.211 Motions in Court of Appeals

(A) — (B)[Unchanged.]

(C) Special Motions. If the record on appeal has not been sent to the Court of Appeals, except as provided in subrule (C)(6), the party making a special motion shall request the clerk of the trial court or tribunal to send the record to the Court of Appeals. A copy of the request must be filed with the motion.

(1) Motion to Remand.

(a) Within the time provided for filing the appellant’s brief, the appellant may move to remand to the trial court. The motion must identify an issue sought to be reviewed on appeal and show:

(i) that the issue is one that is of record and that must
[should] be initially decided by the trial court; or

(ii) that development of a factual record is required for appellate consideration of the issue. [A motion under this subrule must be supported by affidavit or offer of proof regarding the facts to be established at a hearing.]
A motion under this subrule must be supported by affidavit oroffer of proof regarding the facts to be established at ahearing.

(b) — (d) [Unchanged.]

(2) — (9) [Unchanged.]

(D) — (E) [Unchanged.]

Staff Comment: The amendment clarifies that where claims that are the subject of motions for remand require development of facts not of record, the motion must be supported by affidavit or offer of proof regarding the facts to be established at a hearing.

The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

PEOPLE v. RAY, 43 Mich. App. 45 (1972)

204 N.W.2d 38 PEOPLE v. RAY Docket No. 12187.Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided September 27,…

9 years ago

DETROIT EDISON v. PSC, 221 Mich. App. 370 (1997)

562 N.W.2d 224 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY v PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Docket Nos. 177054, 177055, 177062,…

9 years ago

PEOPLE v. BUTTS, 144 Mich. App. 637 (1985)

376 N.W.2d 176 PEOPLE v BUTTS Docket No. 80186.Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided August 5,…

9 years ago

PEOPLE v. ZUNIGA, 56 Mich. App. 231 (1974)

223 N.W.2d 652 PEOPLE v ZUNIGA Docket No. 17453.Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided October 21,…

9 years ago

PEOPLE v. SIDNEY SMITH, 106 Mich. App. 310 (1981)

308 N.W.2d 176 PEOPLE v SIDNEY SMITH Docket No. 50618.Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided March…

9 years ago

PEOPLE v. McELHANEY, 215 Mich. App. 269 (1996)

545 N.W.2d 18 PEOPLE v McELHANEY Docket No. 162330.Michigan Court of Appeals.Submitted November 15, 1995,…

9 years ago