DEAN FITZPATRICK V SECRETARY OF STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DEAN FITZPATRICK,
UNPUBLISHED
February 23, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 220038
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 86-318980-AZ
SECRETARY OF STATE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Neff and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, asserting that certain election laws
concerning ballot matters were unconstitutional. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for
summary disposition, and this Court reversed in an unpublished decision, finding that the trial
court lacked jurisdiction. (Docket No. 105053, issued 08/30/88). Ten years later, plaintiff
sought to revive the matter, relying on an unpublished decision in another case. Fitzpatrick v
Secretary of State, (Docket No. 123569, issued 02/06/91). The trial court again granted summary
disposition to defendant, finding that the matter was governed by this Court’s initial opinion.
The law of the case doctrine provides that a ruling by an appellate court with regard to a
particular issue binds the appellate court and all lower tribunals with respect to that issue. Driver
v Hanley (After Remand), 226 Mich App 558, 565; 575 NW2d 31 (1997). The law of the case
doctrine controls only if the facts have remained materially the same. Id.
In deciding the first appeal in this action, this Court found that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an actual injury. As the trial
court noted, plaintiff has presented no new facts that would affect this Court’s prior ruling. The
trial court properly granted summary disposition.
Moreover, we note that plaintiff’s instant argument on appeal is cursory, and he cites no
binding authorities. We are not required to develop an appellant’s argument or search for
authority to sustain a position. See Palo Group Foster Care, Inc v Dep’t of Social Services, 228
-1-
Mich App 140, 152; 577 NW2d 200 (1998), and People v Lynn, 223 Mich App 364, 368-369;
566 NW2d 45 (1997).
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
