Helmkamp v. Livonia

9 Citing cases

  1. League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Sec'y of State

    506 Mich. 561 (Mich. 2020)   Cited 67 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a case is moot when a court cannot have a practical effect on a controversy

    ’ "Deleeuw v. State Bd. of Canvassers , 263 Mich. App. 497, 505-506, 688 N.W.2d 847 (2004), citing Helmkamp v. Livonia City Council , 160 Mich. App. 442, 445, 408 N.W.2d 470 (1987).Helmkamp , 160 Mich. App. 442, 408 N.W.2d 470.

  2. Berry v. Garrett

    316 Mich. App. 37 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016)

    We conclude that he does. Although our courts will generally "deny the writ of mandamus to compel the performance of public duties by public officials unless the specific right involved is not possessed by citizens generally," Rental Props., 308 Mich.App. at 519, 866 N.W.2d 817 (quotation marks and citations omitted), "[i]t is generally held, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, that a private person as relator may enforce by mandamus a public right or duty relating to elections without showing a special interest distinct from the interest of the public," Helmkamp v. Livonia City Council, 160 Mich.App. 442, 445, 408 N.W.2d 470 (1987), quoting 26 Am. Jur 2d, Elections, § 367, p. 180. Whether a private person should be permitted to do so under the facts of a given case "is a matter within the discretion of the court."

  3. Berry v. Garrett

    316 Mich. App. 37 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016)

    We conclude that he does. Although our courts will generally "deny the writ of mandamus to compel the performance of public duties by public officials unless the specific right involved is not possessed by citizens generally," Rental Props., 308 Mich.App. at 519, 866 N.W.2d 817 (quotation marks and citations omitted), "[i]t is generally held, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, that a private person as relator may enforce by mandamus a public right or duty relating to elections without showing a special interest distinct from the interest of the public," Helmkamp v. Livonia City Council, 160 Mich.App. 442, 445, 408 N.W.2d 470 (1987), quoting 26 Am. Jur 2d, Elections, § 367, p. 180. Whether a private person should be permitted to do so under the facts of a given case "is a matter within the discretion of the court."

  4. 3 IS Enough v. City of Mount Pleasant Clerk

    No. 358405 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2021)

    Rental Props Owners Assoc of Kent Co, 308 Mich.App. at 519 (quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court has recognized the special nature of election cases, Deleeuw v Bd of State Canvassers, 263 Mich.App. 497, 505-506; 688 N.W.2d 847 (2004), and a person may enforce by mandamus a public right or duty relating to elections without showing a special interest distinct from the public, Helmkamp v Livonia City Council, 160 Mich.App. 442, 445; 408 N.W.2d 470 (1987). If defendant had a clear legal duty to reject the petition submitted by Safer Mt Pleasant because it did not strictly comply with statutory requirements made applicable through MCL 168.488, plaintiff had a clear legal right to have defendant reject the petition.

  5. Martin v. Secretary of State

    280 Mich. App. 417 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 14 times

    2Id. at 506, 688 N.W.2d 847. See also Helmkamp v. Livonia City Council, 160 Mich.App. 442, 445, 408 N.W.2d 470 (1987) (holding that the plaintiffs in an election case " were not required to show a substantial injury distinct from that suffered by the public in general" ). " [T]he right to vote is an implicit " ‘ fundamental political right’ " that is " ‘ preservative of all rights.

  6. Deleeuw v. State Board of Canvassers

    688 N.W.2d 847 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 11 times
    Noting that to require a candidate for a federal position in public office to file her petition in person would be violative of the United States Constitution

    For this reason we have found that ordinary citizens have standing to enforce the law in election cases. Helmkamp v. Livonia City Council, 160 Mich. App. 442, 445; 408 N.W.2d 470 (1987). Moreover, we are not dealing with ordinary citizens here. Collectively, plaintiffs duly circulated, signed, and filed petitions that the board would now mute by its inaction.

  7. Burton-Harris v. Wayne Cnty. Clerk

    337 Mich. App. 215 (Mich. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 5 times

    Deleeuw v. Bd. of State Canvassers , 263 Mich. App. 497, 505-506, 688 N.W.2d 847 (2004). See also Helmkamp v. Livonia City Council , 160 Mich. App. 442, 445, 408 N.W.2d 470 (1987) ("[I]n the absence of a statute to the contrary, ... a private person ... may enforce by mandamus a public right or duty relating to elections without showing a special interest distinct from the interest of the public." [Quotation marks omitted.]).

  8. Mich. All. for Retired Ams. v. Sec'y of State

    334 Mich. App. 238 (Mich. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 8 times
    Noting the state's compelling interest in preserving the integrity of elections

    Deleeuw v. Bd. of State Canvassers , 263 Mich. App. 497, 505-506, 688 N.W.2d 847 (2004). See also Helmkamp v. Livonia City Council , 160 Mich. App. 442, 445, 408 N.W.2d 470 (1987) ("[I]n the absence of a statute to the contrary, ... a private person ... may enforce by mandamus a public right or duty relating to elections without showing a special interest distinct from the interest of the public." [Quotation marks omitted.]).

  9. Protect MI Constitution v. Secretary of State

    297 Mich. App. 553 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    Deleeuw v. Bd. of State Canvassers, 263 Mich.App. 497, 505–506, 688 N.W.2d 847 (2004). See also Helmkamp v. Livonia City Council, 160 Mich.App. 442, 445, 408 N.W.2d 470 (1987) (“[I]n the absence of a statute to the contrary, ... a private person ... may enforce by mandamus a public right or duty relating to elections without showing a special interest distinct from the interest of the public.” [Quotation marks omitted.] ).