Schedule of Oral Argument
2003-2004 Term

The following are summaries of cases granted leave to appeal by the Michigan Supreme Court that are awaiting oral argument before the Court's seven Justices during the term (Oct. 2003 - July 31, 2004). This page also provides a status of the case, and links to the Court's opinion or order in each case this session. Further information may be obtained by calling the Supreme Court Clerk's Office at (517) 373-0120. To help you select cases that may be of interest to you, the Court's staff has prepared the following synopses. These are simple summaries of complicated cases, and might not reflect the manner in which some or all of the Court's seven Justices view the cases. The lawyers may also disagree with regard to the facts, the issues, the procedural history, or the significance of their cases. For further details concerning these cases, you should contact the lawyers.

New: See photos of the Michigan Supreme Court Courtroom located in the Michigan Hall of Justice: Click Here>>

2003-2004 Term Briefs and Opinions:
Oct. 2003>>   Nov. 2003>>  Dec. 2003>>   Jan. 2004>>  Mar. 2004>>  Apr. 2004>>   May 2004>>

Previous term 2002-2003: To view the previous term's briefs and opinions: Click Here>>
Previous term 2001-2002: To view the previous term's briefs and opinions: Click Here>>
Search all: To search all Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Opinions:   Click Here>>

NOTE: To view pdf files you must use Adobe Acrobat. Click icon to download a free copy:

MGTV cablecast schedule (link to MGTV): Cablecasts of the Michigan Supreme Court oral arguments are aired across the state on local MGTV stations. Channels may vary based on the cable television provider in your area.

April Session 2004:
Session Calendar>>
Schedule of Arguments>>

Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Case Name & Docket Number	Calendar Number	At Issue	Status
People v Hickman 122548 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	1	Where a suspect is arrested a short time after a crime has occurred and is identified by the victim at the scene of the crime, can that identification be admitted into evidence at trial, or must the suspect be taken to the police station, provided with counsel, and placed in a lineup? Background>>	Opinion 07/20/04>>
CC Mid West v McDougall 123237 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	3	Does the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempt Michigan 's common law of tortious interference with contract and business expectancy? Specifically, do the claims "relate to" an employee benefit plan? Background>>	Order 06/17/04>>
Kreiner v Fischer 124120 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	4 (Nos. 4 & 5 heard together)	When a person is injured in an automobile accident, under the no-fault insurance law how serious must the injuries be for the person to recover noneconomic damages? What constitutes a "serious impairment of body function" under the no-fault act? Background>>	Opinion 07/23/04>>
Staub v Collette 124757 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	5 (Nos. 4 & 5 heard together)	Under Michigan 's no-fault insurance laws, how serious must the injuries be for a person involved in an automobile accident to recover noneconomic damages? What constitutes a "serious impairment of body function" under the no-fault act, and how long must a person's general ability to lead his normal life be disrupted in order to recover noneconomic damages? Background>>	Opinion 07/23/04>>
Sanchez & Vasquez v Eagle Alloy & 2nd Injury Fund 123114 123115 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	6	How does plaintiffs' status as undocumented aliens affect their entitlement to worker's compensation benefits for work-related injuries? In part the issue turns on the definition of "employee" under the worker's disability compensation act. Background>>	Order 07/23/04>>
Estate of Shinholster v Annapolis Hospital 123720- 123721 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	8 (Nos. 8 & 9 heard together)	Did the trial court properly apply the "cap" on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases provided by MCL 600.1483(1)? Can a jury consider the negligence of a patient in causing the condition that leads to seeking treatment? Should future damages have been reduced to present value? Background>>	Opinion 07/30/04>>
Jenkins v Patel 123957 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	9 (Nos. 8 & 9 heard together)	Does the "cap" on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases provided by MCL 600.1483(1) apply in cases involving wrongful death claims? Background>>	Opinion 07/26/04>>
Alibri v Detroit Wayne Co Stadium Authority 123091 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	11	Did the trial court properly set aside an option contract under which the Detroit Wayne County Stadium Authority purchased plaintiffs' land? Background>>	Order 07/20/04>>
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Gerling Konzern Allegemeine, etc v Lawson, et al 122938 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	2	Historically, when the actions of two or more persons jointly caused an injury, each of them could be held liable for the full amount of the damages. But where one of them paid the damages, that party could seek reimbursement for part of the cost from the others. The issue in this case is whether the 1995 tort reform legislation, MCL 600.2925a, 600.2957(1), and 600.6304, which eliminated such joint liability, also eliminated the right to seek contribution from the others who caused the injury. Background>>	Order 07/28/04>> (set for reargument and resubmission at 10/04 session)
County of Wayne v Hathcock, et al 124070 - 124078 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	7	The Michigan Constitution allows the government to take private property by payment of just compensation, if the taking is for a "public use." These nine cases raise a number of questions regarding proposed takings of private property by Wayne County, focusing on whether the taking are for a public use or purpose. Specifically, is a large economic development project a public purpose? And is it a public purpose if the taken property is ultimately to be sold to private entities that are part of the planned development? Background>>	Opinion 07/30/04>>
People v Barbee 123491 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	10	Under the Legislative Sentencing Guidelines, trial courts "score" various factors regarding the circumstances of the crime and the background of the defendant in determining the appropriate minimum sentence. The issue in this case is whether the trial court improperly scored points for interference with administration of justice where defendant gave a false name and false identification when stopped for a traffic violation. Background>>	Opinion 06/23/04>>
Haas v Deal 123144 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	12	The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether a fraud claimant's reliance on an alleged misrepresentation must be reasonable and whether a fraud claim must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Background>>	Order 06/10/04>>
People v Morson 124083 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	13	Under the Legislative Sentencing Guidelines, trial courts "score" various factors regarding the circumstances of the crime and the background of the defendant in determining the appropriate minimum sentence. In this case, the Supreme Court will consider a variety of issues regarding the application of the Sentencing Guidelines focusing on situations involving more than one offender and more than one victim, and the standard of proof when scoring is based on the actions of someone other than the defendant. Background>>	Order 07/30/04>> Opinion 07/30/04>>

March Session 2004:
Session Calendar>>
Schedule of Arguments>>

Tuesday, March 9, 2004
Case Name & Docket Number	Calendar Number	At Issue	Status
People v Russell 122998 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	1	The defendant in this criminal case asked the trial judge to remove his assigned attorney and appoint another lawyer. The court refused to do so, stating that there was no good reason to remove the lawyer. Ultimately, the defendant represented himself. Did the trial judge properly consider the defendant's request for self-representation? May a defendant waive the representation issue by his or her conduct, or must the waiver be verbal? Background>>	Opinion 07/27/04>>
People v Williams 123537 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	2	A defendant in a criminal case may waive the right to counsel; the trial court must first question the defendant to ensure that the waiver is unequivocally, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Here, the trial judge informed the defendant of the charges and the maximum sentence for each charge, advised him of the risks involved, warned him that he would not be allowed to disrupt the proceedings, and questioned him about whether he actually wished to represent himself. Did the trial judge properly consider the defendant's request for self-representation? May a defendant waive the representation issue by his or her conduct, or must the waiver be verbal? Background>>	Opinion 07/20/04>>
People v Holtschlag 123553- 123556 People v Cole People v Brayman People v Limmer Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	3	Where the defendants were prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter, was it necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendants committed a lawful act in a grossly negligent fashion? The underlying act in this case - that of lacing the victims' drinks with GHB - was a felony. The Court of Appeals reversed the defendants' manslaughter convictions, stating that the defendants could not be convicted of involuntary manslaughter under a gross negligence theory, because the underlying act was unlawful. Background>>	Opinion 07/23/04>>
People v Claypool 122696 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	4	The defendant was sentenced to a minimum of eight years for delivery of 50 to 224 grams of cocaine – two years less than the statutory 10-year minimum for that offense. Did the trial judge give “substantial and compelling” reasons for departing from the mandatory minimum sentence imposed by statute? Is “escalation” of the offense by police a reason to depart from the statutory minimum? Background>>	Opinion 7/22/04
Neal v Wilkes 122498 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	7	The plaintiff was injured while riding an all-terrain vehicle on a twelve-acre lot zoned as residential land. She sued for her injuries, but the defendant contends that the Recreational Use Act (RUA) bars her claims. But a 1987 Michigan Supreme Court decision, Wymer v. Holmes, states that the RUA does not apply to urban, suburban, and subdivided lands. Should Wymer be overruled? Background>>	Opinion 07/20/04>>
Allstate Ins v McCarn 122849 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	8	While living with his grandparents, a 16-year-old shot and killed his friend in the grandparents' house. The teens were apparently playing with the gun and believed that it was unloaded. Is the incident covered by the grandparents' homeowner's policy -- and is their insurance company obligated to defend them in a lawsuit brought by the dead teenager's estate? Does the incident fall under the policy’s criminal acts exclusion? Background>>	Opinion 07/30/04>>
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Craig v Oakwood Hospital 121405 121407 121408 121409 121419 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	5	The plaintiff in this medical malpractice case claims that his cerebral palsy was caused by a drug overdose given to his mother during labor, and by medical personnel’s failure to adequately monitor his fetal heart rate. The issues pertain to the testimony offered by plaintiff’s expert witnesses and recovery under a theory of successor liability. Background>>	Opinion 07/23/04>>
Deshambo v Anderson 122939 - 122940 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	9	In general, an employer of an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor's acts. There is an exception to that rule where the contracted work is considered “inherently dangerous.” Is timber cutting an inherently dangerous activity? Background>>	Opinion 07/23/04>>
Ormsby v Capital Welding 123287 123289 Briefs available soon.	10	The general rule is that a general contractor is not liable for the acts of an independent contractor. The case raises issues about the retained control and common work area exceptions. Are these separate exceptions? Should a common-work-area claim proceed against both the general contractor and a subcontractor, and a retained-control claim proceed against the subcontractor? Background>>	Opinion 07/23/04>>
People v Maynor 123760 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	12	Is first-degree child abuse a specific-intent crime? The first-degree child abuse statute, MCL 750.136b(2), provides that “A person is guilty of child abuse in the first degree if the person knowingly or intentionally causes serious physical or serious mental harm to a child.” The defendant contends that she did not “knowingly or intentionally” harm her children. Background>>	Opinion 06/29/04>>
People v Derring 120696 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat		The defendant in this case allegedly killed three people; the prosecution’s theory is that he did so to prevent one of the victims, his accomplice, from telling others about another murder the defendant committed. At trial, four people who heard the victim discuss the earlier crime testified about the victim’s statements. Did the trial court err in permitting their testimony to be admitted into evidence? Background>>	Order 04/30/04>>
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Taxpayers Against Casinos v State 122830 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	6	The Governor negotiated compacts with several Indian tribes covering gambling on tribal lands. The Legislature approved the compacts by concurrent resolution. Are the compacts invalid under the Michigan Constitution because they were not approved by bill? Are the compacts legislation, or are they in the nature of contracts? Background>>	Opinion 07/30/04>>
Breighner v MHSAA 123529 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	11	Is the Michigan High School Athletic Association a public body subject to the Freedom of Information Act? Background>>	Opinion 07/29/04>>
Garg v Macomb Mental Health 121361 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat		The plaintiff is of Indian (India) ancestry. She sued, alleging national-origin discrimination and retaliation against her for opposing sexual harassment and filing a grievance alleging national-origin discrimination. Did she present enough evidence to support her claims? Background>>	Order 04/15/04>>
Duverney v Big Creek- Mentor Utility 123163 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat		The plaintiffs in this case are taxpayers opposing charges for them to connect to a sewer system and to pay for capitalization and maintenance of the system. Do the charges amount to a tax without a vote of the people, in violation of the Headlee Amendment? Background>>	Order 04/15/04>> (remand to COA)

January Session 2004:
Session Calendar>>
Schedule of Arguments>>

December Session 2003:
Session Calendar>>
Schedule of Arguments>>

November Session 2003:
Session Calendar>>        
Schedule of Arguments>>

Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Case Name & Docket Number	Calendar Number	At Issue	Status
Peden v City of Detroit 119408 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	1	The plaintiff worked about fourteen years as a Detroit police officer before having a heart attack in 1986. He was placed on restricted duty status and continued to work, although he was later diagnosed with heart disease. In 1996, he was retired involuntarily with a nonduty disability pension. Were his rights violated under either the Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act or the Americans With Disabilities Act? Background>>	Opinion 06/11/04>>
People v Goldston 122364 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	2	Should evidence discovered in a search be suppressed where police relied on a search warrant that the trial court later found was defective? The prosecution argues that the Supreme Court should adopt a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule, which bars the use of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is ordinarily inadmissible in a criminal trial. Background>>	Opinion 07/15/04>>
Graves v American Acceptance 119977 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	3	As part of a divorce judgment, the plaintiff's former husband received the marital home while she retained a lien on the property. She recorded the lien; later that same day, her former husband gave a mortgage on the property, enabling him to pay off the land contract and get legal title to the property. Does the mortgage take priority over the plaintiff-wife's judgment lien? Background>>	Opinion 4/14/04>>
Catalina Marketing Sales v Dept. of Treasury 121673- 121674 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	4	The petitioner's business involves the printing of coupons on the back of supermarket checkout tapes. Manufacturers pay the petitioner for printing coupons for their products on the tapes. Is this a "sale" of the coupons to the manufacturers that can be taxed? Background>>	Opinion 5/5/04>>
Mayor of Lansing v MPSC 124136 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	10	Do MCL 247.183 and R 460.17601(2)(d) require a pipeline company to obtain the approval of municipalities for pipelines planned to be constructed, in part, along interstate highways that are within municipal borders, and, if so, does the approval have to be obtained before a permit application is filed with the MPSC? Background>>	Opinion 06/09/04>>
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Martin v Beldean, et al 120932 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	6	The plaintiffs claim ownership of a portion of an outlot in a subdivision based on a seemingly good chain of title, while the defendants (other property owners in the subdivision) claim ownership of the entire outlot based on reservation language in the "dedication" paragraph of the subdivision plat. Was this a "private dedication"? If so, was it valid? Background>>	Opinion 03/31/04>>
Little v Hirschman 121836 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	7	The parties are all property owners in the same 1913 subdivision plat, which provided for streets and alleys that were "dedicated to the use of the public" and parks that were "dedicated to the owners of the several lots." Were these "private dedications"? If so, were they valid? Background>>	Opinion 03/31/04>>
Halloran v Bhan 121523 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	8 (8 & 9 heard togther)	A provision in Michigan's medical malpractice statute (MCL 600.2169) states that a plaintiff's expert in a medical malpractice case must specialize "at the time of the occurrence that is the basis for the action in the same specialty as" the defendant physician. The statute also states that "if the [defendant physician] is a specialist who is board certified, the expert witness must be a specialist who is board certified in that specialty." In this case, both the defendant physician and the proposed expert were "critical care" specialists, but they were not board-certified in the same specialty; their critical care certifications were granted by their respective boards. Is the proposed expert qualified to testify? Background>>	Opinion 07/20/04>>
Grossman v Brown 122458 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	9 (8 & 9 heard togther)	What is the meaning of the word "specialty" in MCL 600.2169? How closely must the qualifications of the expert who signs the plaintiff's med-mal affidavit match the qualifications of the defendant physician who is alleged to have acted negligently? In this case, both the plaintiff's expert and the defendant physician are board-certified general surgeons, but the expert lacks a certificate of special qualification in vascular surgery, which the defendant has. Background>>	Opinion 07/20/04>>
In re KH, et al, Minors 122666 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	11	In this termination of parental rights case, a referee specifically found that one of two putative fathers was indeed the biological father of three of the children. However, the children already had a legal father, their mother's husband. Does the putative father have standing to intervene in the case? Background>>	Opinion 04/14/04>>

October Session 2003:
Session Calendar>>      
Schedule of Arguments>>

Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Case Name & Docket Number	Calendar Number	At Issue	Status
People v McNally 120021 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	1	May the prosecution point to the defendant's failure to volunteer information to the police at the time of his arrest, if an ordinary citizen could be expected to do so, even though the defendant was under no compulsion to speak? Background>>	Opinion 5/04/04>> (Reargument and resubmission)
People v Grant 119500 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	2	The defendant was convicted of criminal sexual conduct with a young girl. He argues that he is entitled to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. The girl's aunt came forward to say that her sons had witnessed a bicycle accident that could have accounted for injuries to the girl's genital area. The defendant also argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because the attorney did not produce witnesses to the bicycle accident. Background>>	Opinion 07/15/04>>
Adair v State of Michigan 121536 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	5	Does the legal doctrine of res judicata prevent school districts that were parties in Durant v. State of Michigan, 456 Mich 175 (1997), from suing on their school funding claims in a new lawsuit? Are school districts that were not parties to Durant I barred from suing by releases in resolutions they adopted following the Durant decision? Are certain recordkeeping and transmittal requirements, which were created by legislation after Durant I, new or increased levels of activities or services under the Michigan Constitution? Background>>	Opinion 06/09/04>>
People v Nutt 120489 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	6	The defendant was charged with stealing firearms in Lapeer County. Later, she was also charged in Oakland County with possessing the stolen firearms. Do the two charges amount to double jeopardy? Background>>	Opinion 04/02/04>>
People v McGee 120157 120185 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	7	The trial judge declared a mistrial on her own motion after she learned that a dismissed juror, who had been excused before the case went to the jury, was with the jury during deliberations. The judge then recalled the jury and reinstated the verdict. Was there manifest necessity for the mistrial? Would a retrial amount to double jeopardy? Background>>	Order 11/07/03>>
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
People v Harris 119862 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	3 (3 & 4 heard   together)	The unarmed defendant drove an armed accomplice to the robbery scene and directed his armed accomplice to shoot one of the robbery victims. The unarmed robber took items from another victim while his armed accomplice stood nearby. Was the unarmed robber guilty of armed robbery and possession of a firearm on a theory of aiding and abetting? Background>>	Opinion 5/12/04>>
People v Moore 120543 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	4 (3 & 4 heard   together)	Where the defendant touched the shotgun his accomplice used to kill another man, and repeatedly urged the accomplice to shoot, saying he would do so himself, was there sufficient evidence to support the defendant's felony-firearm conviction? Background>>	Opinion 5/12/04>>
Morales v Auto Owners 122601 Click on docket number(s) to view Pleadings in Acrobat		The plaintiff, who ultimately won a jury verdict in this no-fault insurance case, argues that prejudgment interest must be awarded from the date the complaint was filed until the date the judgment is satisfied. The defendant insurance company contends that the interest was suspended during the time that the plaintiff appealed a preliminary victory by the defendant. Background>>	Opinion 12/30/03 >>
Neal v Wilkes 122498 Click on docket number(s) to view Pleadings in Acrobat		The plaintiff was injured while riding an all-terrain vehicle on a twelve-acre lot zoned as residential land. She sued for her injuries, but the defendant contends that the Recreational Use Act (RUA) bars her claims. But a 1987 Michigan Supreme Court decision, Wymer v. Holmes, states that the RUA does not apply to urban, suburban, and subdivided lands. Should Wymer be overruled? Background>>	Order 10/24/03>> Case heard on oral argument 3/9/04>>
Dessart v Burak 122238 Click on docket number(s) to view Pleadings in Acrobat		What are "assessable costs" under Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.403(O)(3)? If "assessable costs" includes costs from the beginning of the litigation until the jury verdict, then the defendants owe sanctions to the plaintiffs. If the term includes only costs from the beginning of the litigation to the time the case was evaluated, then no sanctions are due. A second question is whether attorney fees are an assessable cost. Background>>	Opinion 5/05/04>>
Mann v Shusteric Enterprises 120651 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	8	The plaintiff, who had been drinking, slipped and fell in the bar parking lot. He sued the bar under a theory of premises liability and won a jury verdict. The bar argues that Michigan's dramshop act should apply to bar the plaintiff's claim because he was visibly intoxicated and therefore not an "innocent party." The dramshop act states that it "provides the exclusive remedy for money damages against a licensee arising out of the selling, giving, or furnishing of alcoholic liquor." Is there a premises-liability exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the dramshop act? Background>>	Opinion 6/30/04>>
Perkovic v Brown 123171 Click on docket number(s) to view Pleadings in Acrobat		Following an auto accident, the plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence in speeding and running a red light. Was the trial court correct in entering summary disposition in favor of the defendant and dismissing the suit? Background>>	Order 10/24/03>>
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Twichel v MIC General Ins. 121822 Click on docket number(s) to view Pleadings in Acrobat		Brady S. Sies paid part of the purchase price of a pickup truck; he was to pay the remainder at a later date. Sies had possession of the pickup for five days when he was involved in a fatal accident. His estate sought personal protection benefits and uninsured motorist benefits from the defendant insurance company. The insurance company contends that it is not liable for benefits because Sies was not the owner of the vehicle. Was Sies the owner of the vehicle either for purposes of Michigan's no-fault statute or under the insurance policy? Does a statutory exclusion bar the estate's claim for personal protection benefits? Does the language of the insurance policy preclude uninsured motorist benefits? Background>>	Opinion 03/09/04>>
People v Boyd 118021 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	9	The trial judge ruled that the defendant's statement to police, "I am taking the fifth on that one" could be used in evidence. The defendant did not testify, and the statement was not introduced. Does the trial judge's alleged error require reversal of the defendant's conviction? Background>>	Opinion 07/01/04>>
Knuth v Knuth 123150 Click on docket number(s) to view Pleadings in Acrobat		The plaintiff-wife was living in Tennessee, and moved to Michigan with her son. Less than 180 days later, she filed for divorce and sought custody of the child. The defendant-husband filed a counter-complaint in Tennessee, but the Michigan court accepted jurisdiction over the divorce and the custody matter. Did the Michigan court have jurisdiction? Background>>	Order 10/24/03>> Order 02/27/04>>
Preserve the Dunes v MI Dept. of Environmental Quality 122611- 122612 Click on docket number(s) to view Briefs in Acrobat	10	Can the plaintiff use the Michigan Environmental Protection Act to obtain relief on its claim that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality improperly granted a permit to extend sand mining operations into a dune area? If the plaintiff can challenge the permit, was the permit improperly granted? Background>>	Opinion 07/30/04>>

Get the latest version of Internet Explorer. Some of the files on this site are PDF files. To view PDF files, you need Acrobat Reader. Download your free copy here.

Technical questions about this site should be sent to webinfo@courts.mi.gov.
Questions about the content on this site should be sent to msc-info@courts.mi.gov.