DEASON v. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF CORR., 120863 (Mich. 2002)

649 N.W.2d 77

DAN DEASON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 120863 (42) (45).Supreme Court of Michigan.
July 29, 2002.

COA: 231939

On order of the Court, the delayed application for leave to appeal from the October 9, 2001 decision of the Court of Appeals and the motion to treat that application as a complaint for mandamus are considered. On order of the Court, the motion is GRANTED, the complaint for mandamus is considered, and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief.

The motion for the Court to implement its superintending control powers is also considered, and it is DENIED.

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