Opinion · Michigan Supreme Court

Benefiel v. State Board of Law Examiners

402 Mich. 959

Type
Opinion
Court
Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Michigan
Date
1978-02-22
Topic
general

Plaintiff’s complaint for superintending control is considered, and it is denied, because the Court is not persuaded that the question sought to be presented should be considered by this Court. By the phrase "actively practiced law” in Board of Law Examiners Rule 5(A)(6)(a) we did not intend to encompass practice pursuant to a special regis*960tration procedure like the Patent Office registration under which plaintiff has been permitted to practice before the United States Patent Office while a Michigan resident. See 37 CFR § 1.341. John R. Benefiel, in propria persona, plaintiff.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Benefiel v. State Board of Law Examiners. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Plaintiff’s complaint for superintending control is considered, and it is denied, because the Court is not persuaded that the question sought to be presented should be considered by this Court. By the phrase "actively practiced law” in Board of Law Examiners Rule 5(A)(6)(a) we did not intend to encompass practice pursuant to a special regis *960 tration procedure like the Patent Office registration under which plaintiff has been permitted to practice before the United States Patent Office while a Michigan resident. See 37 CFR § 1.341.

John R. Benefiel, in propria persona, plaintiff. Robert K. Avery, for defendant.