Yahr v. Garcia

• Decision Date: 12 October 1990
• Docket Number: No. 108733,No. 87101,87101,108733
• Citation: 461 N.W.2d 363,436 Mich. 872
• Parties: John Charles YAHR, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jason Michael Yahr, Deceased; John Charles Yahr, Individually; and Geralyn Kay Yahr, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ramon Gerald GARCIA, Defendant, and Farmers Insurance Exchange, Garnishee Defendant-Appellant. COA
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 363

461 N.W.2d 363

436 Mich. 872

John Charles YAHR, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jason Michael Yahr, Deceased; John Charles Yahr Individually; and Geralyn Kay Yahr Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ramon Gerald GARCIA, Defendant and Farmers Insurance Exchange, Garnishee Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87101.

COA No. 108733.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 12, 1990.

ORDER

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Genesee Circuit Court for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion of in the Court of Appeals. We REMAND the case to the Genesee Circuit Court for the entry of an order dismissing garnishee defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

LEVIN, Justice, would grant leave to appeal and states:

I would grant leave to appeal to consider the subject matter dealt with in the opinions in Powers v. DAIIE, 427 Mich. 602, 398 N.W.2d 411 (1986), and in particular the rules of interpretation set forth in the opinion of Chief Justice Williams applied by the majority in the Court of Appeals in the instant case.

I adhere to the view that peremptory reversal should be reserved for those cases in which the law is settled and no factual assessment is required. ¹ While no factual assessment is required in the instant case, the law is not settled. ²

I would, again, grant leave to appeal.

1 Roek v. Chippewa Valley Bd. of Ed., 430 Mich. 314, 322, 422 N.W.2d 680 (1988) (Levin, J., separate opinion); Grames v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 434 Mich. 867, 868-875, 451 N.W.2d 304 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting); People v. Little, 434 Mich. 752, 769, 456 N.W.2d 237 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting); Dep't of Social Services v. American Commercial Liability Ins. Co., 435 Mich. 508, 460 N.W.2d 194 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting).

See Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 791, 101 S.Ct. 1468, 1472, 67 L.Ed.2d 685 (1981) (Marshall, J., dissenting) ("A summary reversal is a rare disposition, usually reserved by this Court for situations in which the law is settled and stable, the facts are not in dispute, and the decision below is clearly in error"); Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 457-458, 99 S.Ct. 698, 708-09, 58 L.Ed.2d 717 (1979) (Stevens, J., dissenting) ("Summary reversal 'should be reserved for palpably clear cases of ... error.' Eaton v. Tulsa, 415 US 697, 707 [94 SCt 1228,...