WILLIAM H TUCKER V MCNICHOLS-PURITAN-LODGE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
WILLIAM H. TUCKER and KIA TUCKER,
UNPUBLISHED
May 25, 2001
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
CAROL
WALKER,
NELLIE
JUNE
HENDRICKS, JOANN JACKSON, WILLIAM
WARE, RUBY BUTTS, ELLA COCKREL,
MARY JONES, MARILYN DRAKE, JIM
MCGLAUGHLIN and AVA JAMES,
No. 221495
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-903759-CZ
Defendants-Appellees,
and
MCNICHOLS-PURITAN-LODGE COMMUNITY
COUNCIL,
BEVERLY
INGRAM,
BRAD
NICHOLS, OFFICER GRIFFIN, OFFICER COX,
DEBORAH DODD, DORITA SMITH, ZELINE
RICHARD and DEBORAH HILL,
Defendants.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Zahra and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from a circuit court order granting defendants’ motion for
summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). We affirm. This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff Kia Tucker submitted a scholarship application to defendant Council but was not
selected. She and her father, William, sued the Council and its members, claiming that their
failure to designate Kia Tucker for award of a scholarship constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.
The trial court ruled that they had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and
dismissed the complaint.
-1-
Although plaintiffs contend that the trial court’s ruling was erroneous, they have not
briefed the merits of the issue presented or cited any supporting legal authority for their position.
Consequently, the issue is deemed abandoned. Prince v MacDonald, 237 Mich App 186, 197;
602 NW2d 834 (1999). As has oft been stated,
. . . a mere statement without authority is insufficient to bring an issue before this
Court. It is not sufficient for a party ‘simply to announce a position or assert an
error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his
claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for
authority either to sustain or reject his position.’ [Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232,
243; 577 NW2d 100 (1998), quoting Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203; 94
NW2d 388 (1959).]
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
