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.

ADRIAN ENERGY ASSOCIATION, LLC v. Michigan Public Service Commission

Citations: 756 N.W.2d 53; 482 Mich. 986Docket: 136407

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; September 19, 2008; Michigan; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court issued an order on September 19, 2008, denying the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals regarding the case involving Adrian Energy Association, L.L.C. and other appellants against the Michigan Public Service Commission and several appellees, including Consumers Energy Company and the Attorney General of the State of Michigan. The Court concluded that the questions presented by the appellants did not warrant review by the Supreme Court. The Clerk of the Court, Corbin R. Davis, certified the order as a true and complete copy.

Legal Issues Addressed

Certification of Court Orders

Application: The order denying the appeal was certified as accurate and complete by the Clerk of the Court, ensuring official recognition of the document.

Reasoning: The Clerk of the Court, Corbin R. Davis, certified the order as a true and complete copy.

Denial of Application for 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 issued an order on September 19, 2008, denying the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Judicial Discretion in Appellate Review

Application: The Supreme Court determined that the matters raised by the appellants were not significant enough to merit consideration by the higher court.

Reasoning: The Court concluded that the questions presented by the appellants did not warrant review by the Supreme Court.