Order By order of May 28, 2019, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the application for leave to appeal the January 2, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. Viviano, J., did not participate due to a familial relationship...
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2019 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 December 18, 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 March 12, 2019 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 February 25, 2019 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 January 16, 2019 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 March 14, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the cases of Mays v. Governor (Docket Nos. 157335-7, 157340-2), ___ Mich. ___, 926 N.W.2d 803 (2019) are pending on appeal before this Court and that the decisions in those cases may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decisions...
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 25, 2019 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 January 2, 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 2, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Macomb County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after the date of this order. The application for leave to appeal remains pending. VIVIANO, J., did not participate due to a familial relationship with the presiding circuit court judge in this case.
Order On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's December 21, 2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G). CLEMENT, J., did not participate due to her prior involvement as chief legal counsel for the Governor.
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 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. Zahra , J. (concurring). I concur in the Court's denial of leave to appeal in this case, but write separately to address and clarify amicus curiae's concerns. This Court granted the motion of the Great Lakes Water Authority, the Detroit Water and...
Order On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 12, 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 motion for reconsideration of this Court's July 3, 2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
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...
