MICHIGAN UNITED CONSER. CLUBS v. Secretary of State
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ass'n of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity v. Mich. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, Consumers Energy Co. (In re For) (Mich. Ct. App. 2018)
- Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2018)
- in Re Reliability Plans of Electric Utilities for 2017-2021 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018)
- Protect MI Constitution v. Secretary of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2012)
- Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2018)
- Coalition for a Safer Detroit v. Detroit City Clerk (Mich. Ct. App. 2012)
- Stand up for Democracy v. Secretary of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2012)
- Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2008)
- Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Secretary of State (Mich. 2001)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, Ross Dykman, David K. Felbeck, and Corrie Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SECRETARY OF STATE, and the Board of State Canvassers, Defendants-Appellees, and
People Who Care About Kids, Intervening Defendant-Appellee.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration and the motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae are GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal from the April 9, 2001, decision of the Court of Appeals is considered, and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Court of Appeals order and REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for plenary consideration of the complaint for mandamus. The issue in this case is whether the referendum sought is with respect to a law "making appropriations for state institutions or to meet deficiencies in state funds." Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9. This controversy is ripe for review because it is not dependent upon the Board of Canvassers' counting or consideration of the petitions but rather involves a threshold determination whether the petitions on their face meet the constitutional prerequisites for acceptance. See Scott v. Secretary of State, 202 Mich. 629, 644, 168 N.W. 709 (1918); Leininger v. Alger, 316 Mich. 644, 654-655, 26 N.W.2d 348 (1947). All of the information necessary to resolve this controversy, i.e., whether 2000 PA 381 constitutes a law which is excepted from the referendum process under Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9, is presently available.
The Court of Appeals shall give expedited treatment to this case and issue its decision by June 1, 2001. This order shall not be construed as staying the canvass of the petition.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.