e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 44465
Opinion Date : 12/01/2009
e-Journal Date : 12/09/2009
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Gordon v. James
Practice Area(s) : Personal Protection Orders
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Talbot, O’Connell, and Davis
Full Text Opinion

Mootness; B P 7 v. Bureau of State Lottery; Hayford v. Hayford


The court dismissed the respondent's appeals as moot as to the  motion to terminate the petitioners' PPOs against him, which was denied after a subsequent hearing. Because the PPOs expired on May 22, 2009, the court was unable to fashion a remedy for respondent even if his challenges were found to have merit. There was nothing for the court to dissolve, given the PPOs had already expired by their own terms. Respondent's only issues on appeal were the trial court erred in finding petitioners met their burdens of proof in obtaining the PPOs and the trial court violated his due process rights when it issued and continued the PPOs. Those issues lacked public significance. Further, respondent did not allege he would suffer any collateral negative consequence as a result of the continued existence of the now-expired PPOs so as to compel the court to review the merits of his issues despite their mootness.

Full Text Opinion