Jones v. Wayne Prosecutor

4 Citing cases

  1. Seaton v. Wayne Prosecutor

    225 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    We disagree. In Jones v Wayne Co Prosecutor, 165 Mich. App. 62, 65; 418 N.W.2d 667 (1987), this Court held that the FOIA does not apply to a prisoner's request for records of his own criminal trial. Recently, in Central Michigan Univ Supervisory-Technical Ass'n, MEA/NEA v Central Michigan Univ Bd of Trustees, 223 Mich. App. 727, 729; 567 N.W.2d 696 (1997), this Court, in a footnote, purported to overrule Jones to the extent that the holdings of the two cases conflicted.

  2. Proctor v. White Lake Township Police Dept

    248 Mich. App. 457 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 36 times
    Holding Michigan's inmate FOIA exclusion is rationally related to the Legislature's interest in conserving resources and preventing frivolous FOIA requests

    In addressing the retroactivity of the FOIA's prisoner exclusions, this Court in Seaton, supra at 323, explained that a prisoner's FOIA request for the records of his own criminal trial "is procedural in nature for the reason that irrespective of the FOIA, the prisoner has a substantive constitutional right to obtain such records." This Court quoted Jones v Wayne Co Prosecutor's Office, 165 Mich. App. 62, 65; 418 N.W.2d 667 (1987), as follows: While the MFOIA would also appear to be applicable to the present case, we conclude that MCR 6.101(L) [now MCR 6.433] governs exclusively when, as in the present case, a person seeks records related to his or her criminal conviction.

  3. Seaton v. Wayne County Prosecutor

    233 Mich. App. 313 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that an amendment to Michigan's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) precluding prison inmates from making FOIA requests was merely procedural because, notwithstanding the amendment, "prisoner [still] ha[ve] a substantive constitutional right to obtain [government] records"

    In our previous opinion, Seaton v. Wayne Co Prosecutor (On Remand), 225 Mich. App. 1; 570 N.W.2d 125 (1997), remanded 459 Mich. 876 (1998), the majority of this Court affirmed the grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant on the basis that the FOIA does not apply to a prisoner's request for records of his own criminal trial. Jones v. Wayne Co Prosecutor, 165 Mich. App. 62; 418 N.W.2d 667 (1987). On second remand, we reaffirm our previous decision and accordingly again affirm the order of the circuit court granting summary disposition in favor of defendant.

  4. Central Michigan University Supervisory-Technical Ass'n MEA/NEA v. Central Michigan University Board of Trustees

    223 Mich. App. 727 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that FOIA does not conflict with the court rules governing discovery, nor does it supplement or displace them

    Defendants did not deny that plaintiff had a substantive right to the information, only that plaintiff had to follow proper court rule procedure to obtain it. In so ruling, the trial court cited Jones c Wayne Co Prosecutor's Office, 165 Mich. App. 62; 418 N.W.2d 667 (1987), wherein this Court held that, although the FOIA applied to a prisoner's request for documents related to his criminal appeal, MCR 6.101(L) (now MCR 6.433) governed exclusively when a person seeks records related to his criminal conviction. To the extent that Jones conflicts with our holding in this case, we overrule it.