568 N.W.2d 832
No. 107182.Supreme Court of Michigan.
Reconsideration Granted in Part September 23, 1997.
The Supreme Court’s order of May 30, 1997, 454 Mich. 916, is vacated and the following order is entered:
In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is modified. MCR 7.302(F)(1). Proponents of an allegedly lost, destroyed, or suppressed holographic will do not need to show that the holographic will had two subscribing witnesses. MCL 700.123; MSA 27.5123. In all other respects leave to appeal is denied. Reported below: 218 Mich. App. 211.
204 N.W.2d 38 PEOPLE v. RAY Docket No. 12187.Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided September 27,…
562 N.W.2d 224 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY v PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Docket Nos. 177054, 177055, 177062,…
376 N.W.2d 176 PEOPLE v BUTTS Docket No. 80186.Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided August 5,…
223 N.W.2d 652 PEOPLE v ZUNIGA Docket No. 17453.Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided October 21,…
308 N.W.2d 176 PEOPLE v SIDNEY SMITH Docket No. 50618.Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided March…
545 N.W.2d 18 PEOPLE v McELHANEY Docket No. 162330.Michigan Court of Appeals.Submitted November 15, 1995,…