Skip to Main Content
Blogs
BlogsPublications | December 13, 2016
1 minute read

MSC grants MOAA on whether the Court of Claims has subject matter jurisdiction over decisions by the Michigan Film Office

In the consolidated case of Teddy 23, LLC v Michigan Film Office, No. 153420, the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument to address whether the Revenue Act confers subject matter jurisdiction on the Court of Claims for decisions issued by the Michigan Film Office.  After the Michigan Film Office denied Teddy 23’s request for a postproduction certificate of completion because the Department of Treasury concluded that Teddy 23 had misstated its expenditures, Teddy 23 filed an action in the Court of Claims against the Michigan Film Office and the Department of Treasury.  The Court of Claims dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Revenue Act confers subject matter jurisdiction on the Court of Claims for decisions issued by the Department of Treasury, but not the Michigan Film Office. 

Specifically, the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument on the questions of whether (1) the Court of Claims had jurisdiction over Teddy 23’s claim; and (2) the denial of the postproduction certificate of completion was a “decision . . . of [a] state board, commission, or agency, authorized under the laws of this state to promulgate rules from which an appeal or other judicial review has not otherwise been provided for by law.”

To view our previous blog post about the Court of Appeals’ opinion, click here.