*1 Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appelleе, Justices v SC: 134018
COA:
Wayne CC: 05-005826-01 McDANIEL HOPSON,
Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 5, 2007 order оf the Court of Appeals is considered and, 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 Waynе Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this order. MCR 7.302(G)(1).
To have standing on appeal, a party must be aggrieved by the act of а trial court or
appellate court. MCR 7.203(A);
Federated Ins Co v Oakland Co Road Comm
, 475 Mich
286, 291-292;
Here, defendant has a right to be tried by a jury drawn from a fаir cross-section of
the community.
Taylor v Louisiana,
419 US 522, 27; 95 S Ct 692; 42 L Ed 2d 690
(1975);
People v Smith
,
2 on appeal would redress the imminent injury because the defendаnt sought reassignment of his jury challenge back to the trial judge for resоlution 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 Cоurt’s LAO 2006-12.
We do not retain jurisdiction. C AVANAGH , J., concurs with the result of the order. W EAVER , J., concurs and states as follows:
I concur in the order reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals that the defendant is not an aggrieved рarty and remanding this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for further proсeedings.
I write separately because I disagree with the aрplication of the erroneous test for standing created by the majority of four (Chief Justice Taylor and Justices Corrigan, Young, and Markmаn) in Nat’l Wildlife Federation v Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co . [1] 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.
I would hold that the plaintiff has standing under the pre-
Lee
prudential test fоr
standing because the plaintiff has demonstrated “that the plaintiff’s substаntial interest
will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large.”
House
Speaker v State Admin Bd
,
K ELLY , J., states as follows:
I concur with the result of the order. I would, however, remand this case to the Court of Appeals for a ruling on the vаlidity of Local Administrative Order No. 2006-12 before the Court takes action on that local administrative order. See my statement *3 dissenting from the order rescinding in part Local Administrative Order No. 2006-12, 480 Mich ___ (entered Fеbruary 8, 2008).
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the forеgoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. _________________________________________ d0205 Clerk
Notes
[1]
Nat’l Wildlife Federation v Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co
,
[2] See my opinions chronicling the majority of four’s assault on standing in
Lee v Macomb
Co Bd of Comm’rs
,