554 N.W.2d 321
No. 105913.Supreme Court of Michigan.
October 2, 1996.
Leave to Appeal Granted October 2, 1996:
The issues are limited to whether the attorney first appointed to represent the defendant was improperly removed and, if so, what remedy is appropriate. The appellant is to indicate
Page 902
in the brief on appeal whether it wishes to argue the propriety of the removal, or whether it wishes to limit appellate consideration to the issue of remedy. The appellee is to respond accordingly. Leave to cross appeal is denied. Reported below: 215 Mich. App. 658.
Appeal dismissed upon stipulation of the parties on March 12, 1997, with prejudice and without costs.
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,…