Case Name: Beatrice BOLER, Edwin Anderson, Alline Anderson and EPCO Sales, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GOVERNOR, State of Michigan, Department of Environmental Quality, and Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants-Appellees, and Daniel Wyant, Liane Shekter-Smith, Adam Rosenthal, Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Bradley Wurfel, Ed Kurtz, Darnell Earley, Gerald Ambrose, Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, P.C., and Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, Inc., Defendants, and Dayne Walling, Howard Croft, Michael Glasgow, Daugherty Johnson III, and City of Flint, Defendants-Appellants.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2019-03-29
Citations: 924 N.W.2d 250
Docket Number: SC: 158147; COA: 337383
Parties: Beatrice BOLER, Edwin Anderson, Alline Anderson and EPCO Sales, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
GOVERNOR, State of Michigan, Department of Environmental Quality, and Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants-Appellees,
and
Daniel Wyant, Liane Shekter-Smith, Adam Rosenthal, Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Bradley Wurfel, Ed Kurtz, Darnell Earley, Gerald Ambrose, Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, P.C., and Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, Inc., Defendants,
and
Dayne Walling, Howard Croft, Michael Glasgow, Daugherty Johnson III, and City of Flint, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 924
Pages: 250–252

Head Matter:
Beatrice BOLER, Edwin Anderson, Alline Anderson and EPCO Sales, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
GOVERNOR, State of Michigan, Department of Environmental Quality, and Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants-Appellees,
and
Daniel Wyant, Liane Shekter-Smith, Adam Rosenthal, Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Bradley Wurfel, Ed Kurtz, Darnell Earley, Gerald Ambrose, Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, P.C., and Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, Inc., Defendants,
and
Dayne Walling, Howard Croft, Michael Glasgow, Daugherty Johnson III, and City of Flint, Defendants-Appellants.
SC: 158147
COA: 337383
Supreme Court of Michigan.
March 29, 2019
Order

Opinion:
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.