LARRY L COBB V STATE OF MICHIGAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RONALD R. STEWART, R. Ph.,
UNPUBLISHED
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, BUREAU OF OCCUPATIONAL
AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, and
BOARD OF PHARMACY,
No. 190403
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 94-434134-AA
Respondent-Appellant.
__________________________________________
LARRY L. COBB, R. Ph.,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, BUREAU OF OCCUPATIONAL
and PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, and BOARD
OF PHARMACY,
No. 190404
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 94-434136-AA
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Fitzgerald and Smolenski, JJ.
FITZGERALD, J. (dissenting.)
I agree with the majority that the circuit court erred in basing its decision to reverse the Board’s
order on the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. However, I respectfully dissent from the
majority’s conclusion that the inadmissible hearsay evidence on which the Board relied in revoking
-1
petitioners’ licenses constituted competent, material, and substantial evidence. See Borchardt v Dep’t
of Commerce, 218 Mich App 367, 369; 554 NW2d 348 (1996).
The investigative findings stated in the federal report are out-of-court statements offered for their
truth and, therefore, are hearsay. Id. Unlike its federal counterpart, MRE 803(8), the hearsay
exception dealing with public records and reports, does not allow for the admission of investigative
reports into private civil cases. See Bradbury v Ford Motor Co, 419 Mich 550, 554; 358 NW2d
550 (1984); Swartz v Dow Chemical Co, 414 Mich 433, 443-444; 326 NW2d 804 (1982).
Therefore, while use of the report and investigative findings was proper in the federal action under FRE
803(8)(C), use of the report in the state action was not. Because the DEA report was the only
evidence offered against petitioners, it did not constitute competent, material, and substantial evidence to
sustain the Board’s decisions. I would affirm.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.