From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hopson

Supreme Court of Michigan
Feb 8, 2008
480 Mich. 1061 (Mich. 2008)

Summary

stating that to have standing, an appellant must have suffered an "injury in fact"

Summary of this case from People v. Harper

Opinion

No. 134018.

February 8, 2008.

Court of Appeals No. 276344.


Summary Dispositions February 8, 2008.

Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting appeal, we reverse the Court of Appeals erroneous holding that the defendant is not an aggrieved party and we remand this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this order.

To have standing on appeal, a party must be aggrieved by the act of a trial court or appellate court. MCR 7.203(A); Federated Ins Co v Oakland Co Road Comm, 475 Mich 286, 291-292 (2006). He must show that the act of which he complains caused an "`injury in fact'" an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) `actual or imminent, not "conjectural" or "hypothetical."'" Nat'l Wild-life Federation v Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co, 471 Mich 608, 628 (2004) (citations omitted). He must also show that it is likely, rather than merely speculative, that the injury will be "`redressed by a favorable decision.'" Id. at 629 (citation omitted).

Here, defendant has a right to be tried by a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. Taylor v Louisiana, 419 US 522, 527 (1975); People u Smith, 463 Mich 199, 214 (2000). The November 2, 2006, order transferred resolution of the defendant's constitutional challenge to the jury array to the chief judge, but held resolution of his challenge in abeyance until after his trial. Accordingly, the chief judge's order signified an imminent invasion of a concrete, legally protected interest, and the potential injury was more than speculative. Further, a favorable decision on appeal would redress the imminent injury because the defendant sought reassignment of his jury challenge back to the trial judge for resolution before trial.

Because the chief judge's November 2, 2006, order in this case was entered pursuant to Local Administrative Order 2006-12, we remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this order and this Court's February 8, 2008, administrative order rescinding a portion of the Third Judicial Circuit Court's LAO 2006-12. We do not retain jurisdiction.

CAVANAGH, J. I concur with the result of the order.


I concur in the order reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals that the defendant is not an aggrieved party and remanding this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for further proceedings.

I write separately because I disagree with the application of the erroneous test for standing created by the majority of four (Chief Justice TAYLOR and Justices CORRIGAN, YOUNG, and MARKMAN) in Nat'l Wildlife Federation v Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co. In that case, the majority of four continued its systematic dismantling of Michigan's standing law, which replaced years of precedent with the majority's own test that denies Michigan citizens access to the courts.

Nat'l Wildlife Federation v Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co, 471 Mich 608 (2004).

See my opinions chronicling the majority of four's assault on standing in Lee v Macomb Co Bd of Comm'rs, 464 Mich 726, 742 (2001), Nat'l Wildlife, 471 Mich at 651, Rohde v Ann Arbor Pub Schools, 479 Mich 336, 366 (2007), and Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé" Waters North America Inc, 479 Mich 280, 310 (2007).

I would hold that the plaintiff has standing under the pre-Lee prudential test for standing because the plaintiff has demonstrated "that the plaintiffs substantial interest will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large." House Speaker v State Admin Bd, 441 Mich 547, 554 (1993).

KELLY, J. I concur with the result of the order. I would, however, remand this case to the Court of Appeals for a ruling on the validity of Local Administrative Order No. 2006-12 before the Court takes action on that local administrative order. See my statement dissenting from the order rescinding in part Local Administrative Order No. 2006-12, 480 Mich cxxxix (2008).


Summaries of

People v. Hopson

Supreme Court of Michigan
Feb 8, 2008
480 Mich. 1061 (Mich. 2008)

stating that to have standing, an appellant must have suffered an "injury in fact"

Summary of this case from People v. Harper
Case details for

People v. Hopson

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McDANIEL HOPSON…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Feb 8, 2008

Citations

480 Mich. 1061 (Mich. 2008)

Citing Cases

People v. Tillman

To have standing on appeal, a party must be aggrieved by the act of a trial court or appellate court. He must…

People v. Harper

Accordingly, there is no evidence that there is any action for us to correct, and we decline to address the…