On Friday, January 29, 2010, the Court cleared its docket by denying leave to appeal in 137 cases and denying reconsideration in an additional 22 cases. The Court granted leave in three cases which are addressed in a separate post. The Court held People v. Wilkinson in abeyance pending the Court's resolution of People v. Feezel. The Court remanded the following cases:
People v. Hicks: In a case involving egregious evidence of child sexual abuse, the Court vacated the portion of the Court of Appeals' decision requiring the case to be assigned to a new circuit judge for re-sentencing but otherwise denied leave to appeal. Justices Corrigan and Weaver would have reversed the Court of Appeals' decision in its entirety because they believed that the circuit court had adequately justified a significant upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Warning—Justice Corrigan's dissent contains an explicit description of the defendant's conduct.
Duskin v. Department of Human Services: The Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration of that court's class-certification order in light of the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. Justices Corrigan and Young dissented because they believed that the Court's decision in Henry would not change the correct result—denial of class certification.
People v. Gilmore: The Court remanded the case so that the Wayne County Circuit Court could address the defendant's motion to disqualify the judge before addressing the defendant's motion for relief from judgment.
People v. Barbarich: In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals as on leave granted. Justice Cavanagh would have denied leave to appeal.
The Court entered an order clarifying its October 22, 2009 order remanding Shember v. University of Michigan Medical Center to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Bush v. Shabahang.
The Court also ordered the Oakland County Prosecutor to respond to the application for leave in People v. Mathis to address whether the defendant had established cause in prejudice under MCR 6.508(D) in the event the defendant had identified scoring error in his criminal sentence.