IN RE WAGNER

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
IN RE WAGNER
Docket No. 379286
LC No. 24-121623-CH
Thomas C. Cameron
Presiding Judge
Mark T. Boonstra
James Robert Redford
Judges
Although plaintiff framed her filing as a complaint for a writ of mandamus and
superintending control, it is properly considered solely as a complaint for superintending control. See
MCR 3.302(C) (“A superintending control order replaces . . . the writ of mandamus when directed to a
lower court[.]”); see also People v Johnson, 345 Mich App 51, 59; 3 NW3d 846 (2022) (interpreting an
improperly labeled complaint for mandamus as an action for superintending control). So considered, the
complaint for superintending control is DENIED. The motion for peremptory relief is also DENIED.
_______________________________
Presiding Judge
A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr. , Chief Clerk, on
Date
July 29, 2026

-- 1 of 1 --