THERMON MOORE V COUNTY OF MUSKEGON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
THERMON MOORE,
UNPUBLISHED
September 13, 1996
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v
No. 175608
LC No. 93-030008-NO
COUNTY OF MUSKEGON,
Defendant–Appellant,
and
CITY OF MUSKEGON, DEPUTY GILBERT PERO,
individually and as an employee of Muskegon County,
ROBERT W. SMITH, individually and as Chief of Police
for the City of Muskegon, OFFICER JIMMY FOX,
LT. KRAUSE, SHERIFF PENNINGTON, and
MUSKEGON COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
Before: Holbrook, P. J., and Saad and W. J. Giovan, JJ.*
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant Muskegon County alone appeals, by leave granted, from an order granting plaintiff’s
motion for appointment of counsel in the instant case and a companion case. We affirm.
Defendant argues that the trial court lacked authority to appoint counsel in a civil matter. We
note that the order from which this appeal stems was issued following a March 28, 1994 hearing in the
companion case. The trial court then held a similar hearing in the instant case on March 29, 1994.
During the second hearing, the trial court repeatedly and specifically stated that it was incorporating its
statements made on March 28, 1994 into its March 29, 1994 opinion. These statements caused the
March 28, 1994 transcript to become a part of the record for the instant case.
Because the March 28, 1994 transcript is a part of the record, defendant had a duty to provide
this transcript to us. MCR 7.210(A)(1). Although the transcript was not initially filed with the Court of
Appeals, this transcript was later specifically requested by this Court. Nonetheless, defendant’s counsel
refused to provide this transcript to us. By failing to fulfill its duty, defendant rendered its only issue on
appeal unpreserved. Zwolinski v Dep’t of Transportation, 205 Mich App 532, 539; 517 NW2d
852 (1994). Consequently, we decline to review this issue.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ William J. Giovan
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.
