MICHIGAN CAMPAIGN v. BD., ST. CANVASSERS, 467 Mich. 869 (2002)

650 N.W.2d 327

MICHIGAN CAMPAIGN FOR NEW DRUG POLICIES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS, and SECRETARY OF STATE, Defendants-Appellees, and COMMITTEE TO PROTECT OUR KIDS, Intervening Defendant-Appellee.

No. 122283 (18).Supreme Court of Michigan.
September 10, 2002.

COA: 243506

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal from the September 6, 2002, decision of the Court of Appeals, is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Kelly, J., concurring:

I concur. But for the time constraints governing this matter, I would grant leave to consider whether this Court possesses the authority to order correction of the technical error that prevents this proposal from appearing on the ballot.

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