People v. Mungo

2009 Mich. LEXIS 1343 · Michigan Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2009

Full text

People of Michigan v. Michael William Mungo

Summary Disposition June 23, 2009: By order of May 27, 2008, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2008, judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v Gant (Docket No. 07-542). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on April 21, 2009, Arizona v Gant, 556 US _; 129 S Ct 1710; 173 L Ed 2d 485 (2009), the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to that court for reconsideration in light of the decision in Arizona v Gant. We further note that a similar issue is presented in People v Hunter, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April *1092 3, 2008 (Docket No. 272873), which we have peremptorily vacated and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Gant by order dated June 23, 2009 (Docket No. 136546). We do not retain jurisdiction. Court of Appeals No. 269250.

Parentheticals

holding that “[w]here a cause of action is not provided at law” the plaintiff must have “a special injury” “different from the citizenry at large”
Robert Davis v. Detroit Public Sch. Cmty. Dist.
stating that the focus is on whether a litigant is the proper party to request adjudication of a particular issue
Jode Investments LLC v. Burning Tree Properties LLC
holding labor organizations have standing to bring actions where they have "a substantial and distinct interest"
AFT Mich. v. Project Veritas
finding that teachers had standing to seek injunctive relief under state law to expel students who had allegedly assaulted them
Franz v. Oxford Community School District
holding that even in the absence of a legal cause of action, “[a] litigant may have standing ... if the litigant has a special injury or right, or substantial interest, that will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large”
Hurst v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
stating that "strictly interpreting the judicial power of Michigan courts to be identical to the federal court's judicial power does not reflect the broader power held by state courts"
Poe v. Snyder
stating that the “essential requirement of the term ‘actual controversy’ under [MCR 2.605] is that plaintiffs plead and prove facts which indicate an -8- adverse interest necessitating the sharpening of the issues raised”
Fifth Third Bank v. Triangle Associates Inc
overruling Lee v Macomb Co Bd of Comm’rs, 464 Mich 726; 629 NW2d 900 [2001]
Bezeau v. Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc
“[W]henever a litigant meets the requirements of MCR 2.605, it is sufficient to establish standing to seek a declaratory judgment”
20231214_C368615_67_368615.Opn.Pdf
“The standing inquiry focuses on whether a litigant is a proper party to request adjudication of a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiciable.”
Department of Civil Rights v. Suburban Mobility Authority
“the standing inquiry focuses on whether a litigant ‘is a proper party to request adjudication of a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiciable’ ”
Cary Investments LLC v. City of Mount Pleasant
a litigant has standing if he or she has a special injury or right or has a substantial interest that will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large
Bonnie Faraone v. Lansing Board of Water and Light