e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 50565
Opinion Date : 12/29/2011
e-Journal Date : 02/01/2012
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Dehlinger v. Betz
Practice Area(s) : Personal Protection Orders
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Hoekstra, K.F. Kelly, and Beckering
Full Text Opinion
Issues:

Dismissal of appeal as moot; B P 7 v. Bureau of State Lottery; Mead v. Batchlor; Whether the respondent raised any issues of public significance that were likely to recur in the future; Detroit v. Ambassador Bridge Co.; Whether respondent alleged that the continued existence of the expired PPO would present him with negative collateral consequences; Mitcham v. Detroit; Hayford v. Hayford

Summary

Because the PPO the respondent challenged expired on 1/21/11, the court dismissed his appeal as moot. Respondent appealed the trial court's order denying his motion to terminate a PPO. Respondent alleged that he was required to keep and use a firearm in his employment. He further alleged that the County Concealed Weapons Licensing Board revoked his concealed weapons permit. The record did not contain any evidence to support his claims or information as to his profession. Further, the PPO respondent challenged did not restrict his right to possess or purchase a firearm, and the record contained no evidence as to whether his license was revoked as a result of the expired PPO at issue in this case. Respondent did not allege that his employer has terminated him or that he will lose his employment as a result of the existence of the expired PPO. He did not request a nunc pro tunc order declaring the PPO invalid as did the respondent in Hayford. While he alleged that he was required to use a firearm in his employment and that his concealed weapons permit was revoked, he did not argue that the PPO he challenged on appeal will present him with negative collateral consequences. Rather, his allegations in regard to his weapons permit were used to support his argument that the trial court should have applied a more stringent standard of review because his constitutional rights were at issue. However, the court did not need to address this underlying argument because the challenged PPO was now expired.

Full Text Opinion