Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 26, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 26, 2018 orders of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 28, 2018 order 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.
Order On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time for filing his reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before November 1, 2018.
OPINION Viviano , J. The question in this case is whether the voter-initiated amendment proposed by intervening defendant Voters Not Politicians (VNP) should be placed on the ballot. VNP launched a petition drive to propose an amendment that would reestablish a commission to oversee legislative redistricting. Plaintiffs brought suit to stop the petition from being placed on the ballot, making the now familiar argument that the proposed amendment is actually a "general revision" that can...
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 6, 2018 order 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.
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 28, 2017 judgment 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.
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2017 judgment 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.
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 13, 2018 judgment 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.
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2018 judgment 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.
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 11, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 16, 2018 judgment 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.
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 11, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2018 judgment 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.
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 28, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of People v. Dixon-Bey (Docket No. 156746), ___ Mich. ___, 912 N.W.2d 179 (2018) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.
OPINION Markman , C.J. (for affirmance). At issue is whether the rebuttable presumption of undue influence is applicable when the decedent's attorney breaches Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 1.8(c), which generally prohibits an attorney from preparing an instrument giving the attorney or his or her close family a substantial gift. Appellants argue that a breach of MRPC 1.8(c) automatically renders an instrument void, while the appellee attorney argues that, rather than an...
Order On order of the Court, the motion for an order permitting a document to be deemed filed nunc pro tunc on the date of the unsuccessful electronic transmission is DENIED. On March 5, 2018, the Court entered an order denying the defendants' application for leave to appeal. The defendants electronically filed a motion for reconsideration on March 27, 2018, at 12:50 a.m. The Clerk refused to accept the late-filed motion for reconsideration. MCR 7.311(G). The defendants allege that their...
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 23, 2017 judgment 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.
