Procedural Rule Clarified: Cross-Appellant Status May Be Granted Even When the Michigan Supreme Court Denies Leave to Appeal

1. Introduction

Jerome Dubrulle v. Great Lakes Water Authority is one of several consolidated matters in which numerous plaintiffs sued the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA), with various municipalities and related public entities also named as defendants in different configurations. The Michigan Supreme Court’s July 17, 2026 order addresses only appellate procedure: whether the Court would exercise discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ January 22, 2026 judgment, and whether certain parties could participate procedurally as cross-appellants.

The key issues presented to the Supreme Court were (a) whether to grant leave to appeal from the Court of Appeals’ judgment and (b) whether to allow certain parties to file in the Supreme Court as cross-appellants.

2. Summary of the Opinion (Order)

The Court issued a brief order with two operative rulings:

  1. The motions to apply for leave to appeal as cross-appellants were GRANTED.
  2. The application for leave to appeal and the applications for leave to appeal as cross-appellants were DENIED because the Court was “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.”

As a result, the Court of Appeals’ January 22, 2026 judgment remains in place, and the Supreme Court did not reach (or signal a position on) the merits.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

No precedents are cited in the order. This is typical of short orders resolving applications for discretionary review, especially where the Court denies leave without a merits opinion.

B. Legal Reasoning

The order’s reasoning is explicitly limited: the Court denied review because it was not persuaded the questions warranted Supreme Court consideration. That phrasing reflects the Michigan Supreme Court’s role as a court of discretionary review: it selects a small subset of cases for full merits consideration and may deny leave even where the underlying issues are substantial.

The order also contains a practical procedural point: the Court can grant a motion allowing parties to proceed as cross-appellants (thereby recognizing their procedural posture and allowing their filings to be considered) and still deny all applications for leave in the same breath. Put differently, cross-appellant status is not itself a decision to take the case; it is a procedural accommodation that becomes moot once the Court declines review.

Importantly, a denial of leave—especially one issued without a full opinion—does not constitute an endorsement of the Court of Appeals’ reasoning; it is simply a decision not to review.

C. Impact

  • For the parties: The Court of Appeals’ January 22, 2026 judgment stands as the final appellate disposition in these dockets, subject to whatever further proceedings (if any) that judgment requires on remand.
  • For future litigants: The order provides little substantive guidance because it does not address the merits. Its main takeaway is procedural: parties may seek (and the Court may grant) permission to file as cross-appellants, yet the Court may still deny leave across the board.
  • For Michigan law generally: Any broader legal effect will flow from the Court of Appeals’ decision (depending on its publication status and content), not from this Supreme Court order.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Application for leave to appeal
A request asking the Michigan Supreme Court to take a case. Unlike some appeals that are “as of right,” the Supreme Court generally chooses whether to hear a case.
Cross-appellant / cross-application
A party who, in response to another party’s attempt to obtain appellate review, seeks review of additional issues. A cross-application allows that party to ask the Supreme Court to consider different questions if the Court takes the case.
Denial of leave
A decision not to hear the case. It usually indicates nothing more than the Court’s discretionary choice not to grant plenary review.
Consolidated dockets
Multiple related cases managed together for efficiency. Here, several Supreme Court and Court of Appeals docket numbers are grouped in a single administrative order.

5. Conclusion

The July 17, 2026 order in Jerome Dubrulle v. Great Lakes Water Authority is a procedural disposition: the Michigan Supreme Court granted motions permitting certain parties to proceed as cross-appellants, but ultimately denied all requests for Supreme Court review. The order creates no substantive merits precedent; its significance lies in confirming that cross-appellant status can be recognized procedurally even when the Court declines discretionary review, leaving the Court of Appeals’ January 22, 2026 judgment as the controlling outcome for these cases.