In Re Exec. Message of Governor Requesting Authorization of a Certified Question, 755 N.W.2d 153 (Mich. 2008). · Go Syfert
In Re Exec. Message of Governor Requesting Authorization of a Certified Question, 755 N.W.2d 153 (Mich. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“candidate for elective office suffers a cognizable injury in fact if, due to the improper interpretation and enforcement of election law, he' or she is prevented from being placed on the ballot or must compete ' against someone improperly placed on the ballot.”
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: William Thomas McFarland v. Michael S. Pemberton
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) William Thomas McFarland v. Michael S. Pemberton (4×) also: Cited "see"
unknown court · 2017 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
candidate for elective office suffers a cognizable injury in fact if, due to the improper interpretation and enforcement of election law, he' or she is prevented from being placed on the ballot or must compete ' against someone improperly placed on the ballot.
discussed Cited "see" In Re: Nom. Petition of Guzzardi, of: Stewart
Pa. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Butts, 5 A.3d at 943 n.16 (quoting Martin v. Secretary of State, 760 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (O’Connell, J., dissenting)); see Martin v. Secretary of State, 755 N.W.2d 153 , 154 (Mich. 2008) (adopting the salient reasoning of Judge O’Connell’s dissent on appeal); accord Repsold v. Indep.
discussed Cited "see" In re Nomination Petition of Guzzardi
Pa. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Butts, 5 A.3d at 943 n. 16 (quoting Martin v. Secretary of State, 280 Mich.App. 417 , 760 N.W.2d 726 (2008) (O’Connell, J., dissenting)); see Martin v. Secretary of State, 482 Mich. 956 , 755 N.W.2d 153 , 154 (2008) (adopting the salient reasoning of Judge O’Connell’s dissent on appeal); accord Repsold v. Indep.
discussed Cited "see" Butts v. Bysiewicz
Conn. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
Holding otherwise invites the destruction of our citizens’ faith in our electoral process.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Martin v. Secretary of State, 280 Mich. App. 417, 437 , 760 N.W.2d 726 (2008) (O’Connell, J., dissenting); see Martin v. Secretary of State, 482 Mich. 956 , 755 N.W.2d 153 (2008) (Supreme Court adopting reasoning of Judge O’Connell’s dissent on appeal). 17 See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993) (defining “deem” as “to sit in judgment upon: decide ... to come to view, judge or classify after some reflection: hold, t…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." PA Dem Party. v. Boockvar Pet: Boockvar
Pa. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
Butts v. Bysiewicz, 5 A.3d 932, 947 (Conn. 2010) (“Equity only applies in the absence of a specific statutory mandate.”); see also Martin v. Secretary of State, 755 N.W.2d 153 , 154 (Mich. 2008); Smith v. Kiffmeyer, 721 N.W.2d 912 , 914–15 (Minn. 2006); Andrews v. Secretary of State, 200 A.2d 650, 651 (Md. 1964).
In re EXECUTIVE MESSAGE OF GOVERNOR REQUESTING the AUTHORIZATION OF A CERTIFIED QUESTION
137195.
Michigan Supreme Court.
Sep 4, 2008.
755 N.W.2d 153

The Governor's September 2, 2008 Executive Message, pursuant to MCR 7.305(A)(1), requested this Court to authorize the Court of Appeals to certify a question relating to the removal proceeding to be conducted by the Governor against the Mayor of Detroit. On the same date, the plaintiff Mayor filed a claim of appeal in Detroit Mayor v. Governor (Court of Appeals Docket No. 287462) and, by peremptory order of September 2, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Wayne Circuit Court and denied the plaintiff Mayor's motion for a stay. On September 3, 2008, the plaintiff Mayor filed in this Court (Docket No. 137197) an emergency application for leave to appeal from that Court of Appeals decision. This Court denied that application on September 4, 2008. Accordingly, in response to the Executive Message, we respectfully decline the request to authorize the certified question because it is effectively moot.