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. Benjamin Duane-Hayward Wilkins

Citation: Not availableDocket: 143657

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; December 27, 2011; Michigan; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court, in an order dated December 28, 2011, denied the application for leave to appeal filed by Benjamin Duane-Hayward Wilkins concerning the Court of Appeals' order from August 1, 2011. The Court concluded that the issues raised in the appeal did not warrant review. The decision was made by Chief Justice Robert P. Young, Jr., and Justices Michael F. Cavanagh, Marilyn Kelly, Stephen J. Markman, Diane M. Hathaway, and Mary Beth Kelly. The order was certified by Clerk Corbin R. Davis as a true and complete copy of the Court's decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Certification of Court Orders

Application: The court order was certified by the Clerk as a true and complete representation of the court's decision, ensuring the authenticity and accuracy of the judicial record.

Reasoning: The order was certified by Clerk Corbin R. Davis as a true and complete copy of the Court's decision.

Denial of Leave to Appeal

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

Reasoning: The Michigan Supreme Court, in an order dated December 28, 2011, denied the application for leave to appeal filed by Benjamin Duane-Hayward Wilkins concerning the Court of Appeals' order from August 1, 2011.

Discretionary Review by Supreme Court

Application: The decision illustrates the court's discretion in determining whether the appeal issues warrant review, based on the court's assessment of their significance or novelty.

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