Dwayne Wigfall v. City of Detroit

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
June 1, 2018 Stephen J. Markman,
Chief Justice
156793 Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein
DWAYNE WIGFALL, Kurtis T. Wilder
Plaintiff-Appellant, Elizabeth T. Clement,
Justices
v SC: 156793
COA: 333448
Wayne CC: 15-015620-NO
CITY OF DETROIT,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 7, 2017
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral
argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).
The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this
order addressing: (1) whether strict or substantial compliance is required with the notice
provision contained within MCL 691.1404(2), compare Rowland v Washtenaw County
Road Commission, 477 Mich. 197 (2007), with Plunkett v Dep’t of Transportation, 286
Mich. App. 168 (2009); (2) whether the plaintiff’s notice failed to comply with MCL
691.1404(2) under either a strict or substantial compliance standard; (3) whether an
individual described in MCR 2.105(G)(2) can delegate the legal authority to accept
lawful process under MCL 691.1404(2), see 1 Mich. Civ Jur Agency § 1 (2018); and (4)
whether the defendant should be estopped from asserting that the statutory notice
requirement was not met. In addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an
appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must
provide the appendix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall
file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the appellant’s brief. The
appellee shall also electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use
of the appendix filed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant
within 14 days of being served with the appellee’s brief. The parties should not submit
mere restatements of their application papers.
2
Persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this
case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
We further direct the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same
future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in West v City of Detroit
(Docket No. 157097).
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
June 1, 2018
d0529
Clerk