CINDY L CAMERON V STATE OF MICHIGAN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CINDY L. CAMERON, UNPUBLISHED March 3, 2000 Plaintiff-Appellee, v STATE OF MICHIGAN, MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT, STATE COURT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE and MICHIGAN STATE TREASURER, No. 207829 Monroe Circuit Court LC No. 96-005125-CZ; 96-016026-CM Defendants-Appellants, and COUNTY OF MONROE, Defendant-Appellee. Before: Wilder, P.J., and Bandstra and Cavanagh, JJ. CAVANAGH, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that former Judge James Seitz is not entitled to indemnification in this action because he did not make a request for representation by the Attorney General. I cannot agree. Seitz requested representation by the Attorney General in the prior federal action, and the Monroe County action was merely a continuation of that case. The office of the Attorney General was on notice that, as the federal district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim, the action would be pursued in Monroe Circuit Court. In my opinion, the majority exalts form over substance by concluding that “the Monroe County action was a new action commenced by plaintiff after her federal case had been dismissed.” I would affirm the trial court. /s/ Mark J. Cavanagh -1

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.