Narrative Opinion Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Robert P. Young, Jr., issued an order on April 23, 2012, regarding the case William Adam, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Margaret Adam, against Sisters of Bon Secours Nursing Care Center. The Court denied the application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' September 6, 2011 judgment, concluding that the issues raised did not warrant review. Additionally, the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant was deemed moot and also denied. Justice Hathaway expressed a differing opinion, stating she would grant leave to appeal. The Clerk of the Court, Corbin R. Davis, certified the accuracy of the order.
Legal Issues Addressed
Certification of Court Ordersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Clerk of the Court verified the authenticity and accuracy of the Court's order.
Reasoning: The Clerk of the Court, Corbin R. Davis, certified the accuracy of the order.
Denial of Application for Leave to Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeals, indicating that the issues raised were not sufficient to warrant further review.
Reasoning: The Court denied the application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' September 6, 2011 judgment, concluding that the issues raised did not warrant review.
Dissenting Opinion on Granting Leave to Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Justice Hathaway expressed a differing opinion, indicating her belief that the case merited a review by the Court.
Reasoning: Justice Hathaway expressed a differing opinion, stating she would grant leave to appeal.
Mootness of Cross-Appellant Applicationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The application for leave to appeal as a cross-appellant was dismissed as moot, implying that there was no longer a controversy requiring resolution by the Court.
Reasoning: Additionally, the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant was deemed moot and also denied.