Case ID: mich_402/html/0959-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

February 22, 1978
    Benefiel v State Board of Law Examiners.
    (Docket No. 60423.)
   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 registration 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.