Case Name: HANSELMAN v. WAYNE COUNTY CONCEALED WEAPON LICENSING BOARD (ON REMAND)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1985-10-22
Citations: 146 Mich. App. 616
Docket Number: Docket No. 80182
Parties: HANSELMAN v WAYNE COUNTY CONCEALED WEAPON LICENSING BOARD (ON REMAND)
Judges: Before: Bronson, P.J., and R. M. Maher and Hood, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 146
Pages: 616–618

Head Matter:
HANSELMAN v WAYNE COUNTY CONCEALED WEAPON LICENSING BOARD (ON REMAND)
Docket No. 80182.
Submitted August 31, 1984, at Lansing.
Decided October 22, 1985.
The Wayne County Concealed Weapon Licensing Board revoked John Hanselman’s permit to carry a concealed weapon on the ground that he had carried the weapon in violation of the restrictions which had been imposed at the time the permit was issued. Mr. Hanselman brought an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against the board and its clerk, seeking to enjoin the board’s action on the ground that the board had not complied with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. The court, Joseph B. Sullivan, J., held that the board was not a state agency and was not subject to the APA. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the board was a state agency for purposes of the APA and that, therefore, the board had to comply with the provisions of the APA. Hanselman v Killeen, 112 Mich App 275 (1982). The board appealed to the Supreme Court which reversed, holding that the board was not an agency subject to the provisions of the APA, and remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the plaintiff’s remaining due process claims. 419 Mich 168 (1984). On remand, held: Plaintiff was not deprived of procedural due process in the hearing before the board. The findings of fact by the trial court were not clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.
Appeal — Findings of Fact — Court Rules.
Findings of fact by a trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless the Court of Appeals is persuaded that the findings are clearly erroneous (MCR 2.613[C]; GCR 1963, 517.1).
References for Points in Headnote
Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 839.
See the annotations in the ALR3d/4th Quick Index under Findings of Fact.
Howard Alan Katz, P.C. (by Howard Alan Katz), and Hoffert & Litt, P.C. (by Paul H. Steinberg), for plaintiff._
William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Theodore Stephens, Deputy Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Civil Department, and Jeffrey Caminsky, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for defendants.
On Remand
Before: Bronson, P.J., and R. M. Maher and Hood, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This matter comes to us upon remand by the Supreme Court. Originally, in Hanselman v Killeen, 112 Mich App 275; 316 NW2d 237 (1982), we held that the Wayne County Concealed Weapon Licensing Board was a state agency for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act and that, therefore, the board had to comply with the provisions of the APA.
The board appealed and the Supreme Court reversed in a lengthy opinion, Hanselman v Wayne County Concealed Weapon Licensing Board, 419 Mich 168; 351 NW2d 544 (1984). The Supreme Court held that the board was not an agency subject to the provisions of the APA and remanded "for consideration of the plaintiffs remaining due process claims". 419 Mich 201.
Having undertaken the requisite examination, we hold that plaintiff was not deprived of procedural due process in the hearing before the board. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's denial of plaintiffs request for an injunction enjoining the board from revoking his concealed weapon license. Withrow v Larkin, 421 US 35; 95 S Ct 1456; 43 L Ed 2d 712 (1975); Bay County Concealed Weapons Licensing Board v Gasta, 96 Mich App 784; 293 NW2d 707 (1980).
Affirmed.
Plaintiffs alleged substantive due process claim is more properly rephrased as an argument that the trial court's factual determination that plaintiff was not in the course of his employment was not supported by the evidence. It is well established that findings of fact by a court will be left undisturbed unless this Court is persuaded that the findings are clearly erroneous. MCR 2.613(C); GCR 1963, 517.1; Mergenthaler Linotype Co v Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc, 22 Mich App 688; 178 NW2d 76 (1970). This Court is not persuaded.