McCormick v. Carrier
| Decision Date | 20 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | COA No. 275888.,Docket No. 136738. |
| Citation | 770 N.W.2d 357,485 Mich. 851 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Rodney McCORMICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry CARRIER, Defendant, and Allied Automotive Group, Inc., indemnitor of General Motors Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
On order of the Court, the motions for leave to file briefs amicus curiae are GRANTED. The motion for reconsideration of this Court's October 22, 2008 order is considered, and it is GRANTED. We VACATE our order dated October 22, 2008. On reconsideration, the application for leave to appeal the March 25, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED.
I concur fully in the order granting reconsideration and leave to appeal in this case. I write separately to respond to the dissent's statements regarding the decision to grant reconsideration in this case.
The dissent erroneously asserts that the justices voting to grant reconsideration do so improperly. The dissent cites Peoples v. Evening News Ass'n, 51 Mich. 11, 21, 16 N.W. 691 (1883), for the proposition that this Court is precluded from granting rehearing or reconsideration when the composition of the Court has changed, absent any new arguments from the parties in the case. However, contrary to the dissent's assertions, this Court merely stated in Peoples that a change in the composition of this Court cannot be the basis for granting rehearing or reconsideration.
As such, if the composition of the Court changes, and the composition becomes such that a majority of the Court sees a reason to grant reconsideration, the majority is not precluded from granting reconsideration. If, for instance, four justices on the newly composed Court conclude that the challenged decision was erroneous, those justices can vote to grant reconsideration. The same holds true whether the deciding vote is a new justice who joined the Court after the challenged decision was released or the deciding vote comes from a justice who voted for the challenged decision and changed his or her mind after further consideration.
This practice is consistent with MCR 2.119(F)(3), which creates a "palpable error" standard for rehearing and reconsidering cases. It is up to the moving party to show palpable error that would lead to a different disposition in the case. If a majority of the Court is convinced by the moving party, the Court has the discretion to grant rehearing or reconsideration. Furthermore, while MCR 2.119(F)(3) states that a motion for reconsideration generally will not be granted if the motion only presents the same issues ruled on in the original decision in the case, MCR 2.119(F)(3) explicitly refrains from "restricting the discretion of the court" to grant reconsideration.
Accordingly, I concur in the order to grant reconsideration and leave to appeal.
Seeking reconsideration, plaintiff calls on this Court to overturn our decision in Kreiner v. Fischer, 471 Mich. 109, 683 N.W.2d 611 (2004), which discusses the no-fault tort threshold, MCL 500.3135, of the Michigan automobile no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq. On October 22, 2008, in a four to three decision, a majority of this Court denied plaintiff's application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals decision,1 which, consistently with the principles of Kreiner, had resolved the case in defendants' favor.2 Now, although neither the law nor the facts of his case have changed, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of our order. He and his amici seek to take advantage of the intervening change in this Court's membership to reopen an otherwise final case. They have succeeded. This Court now grants reconsideration in a new four to three vote where former Chief Justice Clifford Taylor's vote to deny leave, consistent with Kreiner, is now supplanted by newly elected Justice Hathaway's vote to grant reconsideration and grant leave to appeal.
As my colleagues have observed in other recent cases,3 I wish only to reemphasize that the practice of reconsidering final orders due merely to a change in the Court's composition runs afoul of the historical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mccormick v. Carrier
...could not meet the serious impairment threshold provided in MCL 500.3135(1). The Court of Appeals affirmed, with one judge dissenting. McCormick v. Carrier, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 25, 2008 (Docket No. 275888), 2008 WL 786529. The majority held t......
-
Anglers of The Ausable Inc. v. Dep't of Envtl. Quality
...e.g., Duncan v. State, 486 Mich. 1071, 1074, 784 N.W.2d 51 (2010) (Marilyn Kelly, C.J., dissenting); McCormick v. Carrier, 485 Mich. 851–852, 770 N.W.2d 357 (2009) (Weaver, J., concurring); Univ. of Michigan Regents v. Titan Ins. Co., 484 Mich. 852, 853–854, 769 N.W.2d 646 (2009) (Young, J.......
-
Pollard v. Suburban Mobility Auth. For Reg'l Transp.
...the parties to consider whether Cameron v. ACIA, 476 Mich. 55, 718 N.W.2d 784 (2006), was correctly decided); McCormick v. Carrier, 485 Mich. 851, 770 N.W.2d 357 (2009) (granting leave to consider the plaintiff's request to overrule Kreiner v. Fischer, 471 Mich. 109, 683 N.W.2d 611 (2004));......
-
Idalski v. Schwedt
...the parties to consider whether Cameron v. ACIA, 476 Mich. 55, 718 N.W.2d 784 (2006), was correctly decided); McCormick v. Carrier, 485 Mich. 851, 770 N.W.2d 357 (2009) (granting leave to consider the plaintiff's request to overrule Kreiner v. Fischer, 471 Mich. 109, 683 N.W.2d 611 (2004));......