You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

People of Michigan v. Troy Roland Hamilton

Citation: Not availableDocket: 145263

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; November 6, 2012; Michigan; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal the April 30, 2012 order of the Court of Appeals concerning the case of People of the State of Michigan v. Troy Roland Hamilton. The Court concluded that the issues raised did not warrant review. The decision was made under the direction of Chief Justice Robert P. Young, Jr., with Justices Michael F. Cavanagh, Marilyn Kelly, Stephen J. Markman, Diane M. Hathaway, Mary Beth Kelly, and Brian K. Zahra participating in the decision. The order was certified as a true and complete copy by Clerk Corbin R. Davis on November 7, 2012.

Legal Issues Addressed

Certification of Judicial Orders

Application: The order of the Michigan Supreme Court was certified as a true and complete copy, ensuring the authenticity and official status of the court's decision.

Reasoning: The order was certified as a true and complete copy by Clerk Corbin R. Davis on November 7, 2012.

Denial of Leave to Appeal

Application: The Michigan Supreme Court applied its discretion to deny the application for leave to appeal, indicating that the issues presented did not meet the criteria for further review.

Reasoning: The Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal the April 30, 2012 order of the Court of Appeals concerning the case of People of the State of Michigan v. Troy Roland Hamilton.

Judicial Discretion in Appellate Review

Application: The Court exercised its judicial discretion to conclude that the issues raised in the appeal did not warrant review, demonstrating the Court's authority to determine the necessity of revisiting lower court decisions.

Reasoning: The Court concluded that the issues raised did not warrant review.