From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ingersoll

Court of Appeals of Michigan
Jan 26, 2023
No. 360906 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2023)

Opinion

360906

01-26-2023

People of Michigan v. Mark Allen Ingersoll Jr


LC No. 21-016514-FH

ORDER

Michael F. Gadola, Chief Judge Pro Tem, acting under MCR 7.211(E)(2), orders:

The motion to reinstate oral argument and to accept untimely motion to remand is GRANTED TO THE EXTENT that the request for oral argument is GRANTED and the Clerk's Office is directed to accept for filing the motion to remand provided as an attachment to the present motion. Notably, the current MCR 7.211(C)(1) no longer imposes a time limit on filing a motion to remand, so it was unnecessary for defendant to file a motion to ask this Court to accept the motion to remand for filing.

However, because plaintiff might not have known if the motion to remand would be accepted for filing until the decision on the present motion, plaintiff may timely file an answer to the motion to remand within 21 days after the date of this order.


Summaries of

People v. Ingersoll

Court of Appeals of Michigan
Jan 26, 2023
No. 360906 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2023)
Case details for

People v. Ingersoll

Case Details

Full title:People of Michigan v. Mark Allen Ingersoll Jr

Court:Court of Appeals of Michigan

Date published: Jan 26, 2023

Citations

No. 360906 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2023)