Filed: Nov. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 26, 2019
Summary: 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 w
Summary: 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 wi..
More
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 with the presiding circuit court judge in this case.
