Federated Publications, Inc v. City of Lansing

80 Citing cases

  1. Tousignant v. City of Iron River

    No. 329893 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2016)

    Detroit Free Press, Inc v City of Southfield, 269 Mich App 275, 281; 713 NW2d 28 (2005). Our Supreme Court in Federated Publications, Inc v City of Lansing, 467 Mich 98; 649 NW2d 383 (2002), modified by Eastern Mich Univ Bd of Regents, 475 Mich at 467, 471-472, explained how a court must analyze a claimed exemption under MCL 15.243(1)(s). The Court rejected the argument that once the public body establishes that the requested records are covered by § 243(1)(s) that "the burden of demonstrating that the public interest in disclosure outweighs that of nondisclosure shifts to the requester."

  2. People v. Richmond

    486 Mich. 29 (Mich. 2010)   Cited 147 times
    Holding that a case is moot if it seeks "judgment upon some matter which, when rendered, for any reason, cannot have any practical legal effect upon a then existing controversy," and that "a court will not decide moot issues."

    This is because it is the "principal duty of this Court . . . to decide actual cases and controversies." Federated Publications, Inc v City of Lansing, 467 Mich 98, 112; 649 NW2d 383 (2002), citing Anway v Grand Rapids R Co, 211 Mich 592, 610; 179 NW 350 (1920). That is, "`[t]he judicial power . . . is the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction.'"

  3. Anglers, Ausable, Inc. v. Dept., Environ. Quality

    486 Mich. 982 (Mich. 2010)   Cited 5 times

    It is well established that " this Court does not reach moot questions or declare principles or rules of law that have no practical legal effect in the case before us unless the issue is one of public significance that is likely to recur, yet evade judicial review." Federated Publications, Inc. v. Lansing, 467 Mich. 98, 112, 649 N.W.2d 383 (2002). An issue is not necessarily moot, however, " [w]here a party voluntarily ceases an activity challenged as illegal...." Dep't of Social Services v. Emmanuel Baptist Preschool, 434 Mich. 380, 425, 455 N.W.2d 1 (1990), Cavanagh, J., concurring, quoting United States v. W T Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953).

  4. Herald Co. v. Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents

    475 Mich. 463 (Mich. 2006)   Cited 141 times
    Holding that courts must “interpret every word, phrase, and clause in a statute to avoid rendering any portion of the statute nugatory or surplusage”

    However, where the parties do not dispute the underlying facts but rather challenge the trial court's exercise of discretion, we hold that an appellate court must review that determination for an abuse of discretion, which this Court now defines as a determination that is outside the principled range of outcomes. 467 Mich 98; 649 NW2d 383 (2002).City of Novi v Robert Adell Children's Funded Trust, 473 Mich 242, 254; 701 NW2d 144 (2005), quoting People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 269; 666 NW2d 231 (2003) ("Discretion is abused when the decision results in 'an outcome falling outside this principled range of outcomes.'").

  5. City of Novi v. Robert Adell Children's Funded Trust

    473 Mich. 242 (Mich. 2005)   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a proposed road, built partly in response to traffic problems, was for a pubic purpose even though a private entity would be the primary user of the road and had contributed funds to the project

    We review the trial court's factual findings for clear error, but its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Federated Publications, Inc v. City of Lansing, 467 Mich 98, 106; 649 NW2d 383 (2002). Cases stating that the trial court's determinations in condemnation cases are reviewed for clear error are correct only to the extent that this standard applies to factual findings.

  6. People v. James

    272 Mich. App. 182 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    The circuit court has since appointed counsel for defendant, rendering the appointment of counsel a moot question with respect to defendant, but we nevertheless address the issue presented because it is one that pertains to similarly situated defendants, and is capable of repetition, yet may evade judicial review.Federated Publications, Inc v City of Lansing, 467 Mich 98, 112-113; 649 NW2d 383 (2002). As the concurrence notes, defendant timely filed an application for leave to appeal in this Court in propria persona after the trial court wrongfully denied appointed counsel pursuant to Halbert.

  7. Department of Education v. Grosse Pointe Public Schools

    266 Mich. App. 258 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    A reviewing court will not reach moot issues or declare principles or rules of law that have no practical effect on the case before it "unless the issue is one of public significance that is likely to recur, yet evade judicial review." Federated Publications, Inc v. City of Lansing, 467 Mich 98, 112; 649 NW2d 383 (2002). This Court can grant declaratory relief only if there is an actual controversy.

  8. Herald Co. v. Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents

    265 Mich. App. 185 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 3 times

    Specifically, the Court held that: Federated Publications, Inc v. City of Lansing, 467 Mich 98; 649 NW2d 383 (2002).Federated Publications, supra at 106.

  9. Ryan v. Ryan

    260 Mich. App. 315 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 48 times
    Filing a complaint without the required verification or supporting affidavits "calls into question the competence and good faith of the plaintiff's attorney"

    Generally, this Court need not reach moot issues or declare legal principles that have no practical effect on the case "unless the issue is one of public significance that is likely to recur, yet evade judicial review." Federated Publications, Inc. v. City of Lansing, 467 Mich. 98, 112; 649 N.W.2d 383 (2002). Because this case was dismissed and plaintiff has since reached the age of majority, the issues presented on appeal no longer rest upon existing facts or rights.

  10. Lansing Schools Educ. v. Lansing Board of Educ

    487 Mich. 349 (Mich. 2010)   Cited 336 times
    Holding labor organizations have standing to bring actions where they have "a substantial and distinct interest"

    In House Speaker v State Admin Bd., 441 Mich 547, 556; 495 NW2d 539 (1993), this Court again recognized the indisputable relationship between standing and the separation of powers, holding that "[i]t would be imprudent and violative of the doctrine of separation of powers to confer standing upon a legislator simply for failing in the political process." More recently, in Federated Publications, Inc v City of Lansing, 467 Mich 98; 649 NW2d 383 (2002), we reaffirmed and explicitly declared that the "principal duty of this Court is to decide actual cases and controversies." Id. at 112, citing Anway, 211 Mich at 610, and In re Midland Publishing Co, Inc, 420 Mich 148, 152 n 2; 362 NW2d 580 (1984).