Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway, J ustices 

# Order

June 11, 2010

140322

WILLIAM POLLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 140322 COA: 288851 Wayne CC: 07-729771-NI SUBURBAN MOBILITY AUTHORITY for REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION, d/b/a SMART, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 24, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consider ed. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applicati on or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall address whether this Court should reconsider Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm , 477 Mich 197 (2007 ). They may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this or der, but they should not submit mere restatements of th eir application papers.

The Michigan Association for Justice and the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc. are invited to file briefs amicus curiae . Other persons or gro ups interested in the determination of the issue pres ented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

Y OUNG , J. ( dissenting ).

I respectfully dissent from the order dir ecting further argument on the application for leave to appeal in this case and instead w ould deny leave to appeal. The order directs the parties to discuss whether this Court should reconsider Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm’n

. 1 I believe Rowland was correctly decided. While it is certainly the prerogative

1 477 Mich 197 (2007).2

of the Court to reconsider that decision, this order is another instance where the majority seems to retreat from its previously stated fidelity to stare decisis. 2

Since the shift in the Court’s philosophical majority in January 2009, the majority has pointedly sought out pr ecedents only recently decided, 3 has failed to give effect to

2 See, e.g., Pohutski v City of Allen Park , 465 Mich 675, 712; 641 NW2d 219 (2002) (K ELLY , J., dissenting) (“[I]f each successive C ourt, believing its reading is correct and past readings wrong, rejects precedent, then the law will fluctuate from year to year, rendering our jurisprudence dangerously unstable.”); People v Hawkins , 468 Mich 488, 517-518; 668 NW 2d 602 (2003) (C AVANAGH , J., dissenting) (“We have overruled our precedents when the in tervening development of the la w has ‘removed or weakened the conceptual underpinnings from the prior decisi on, or where the later law has rendered the decision irreconcilable with competing legal doc trines or policies.’ . . . Absent those changes or compelling evidence bearing on Co ngress’ original intent . . . our system demands that we adhere to our prior in terpretations of statutes.”), quoting Patterson v McLean Credit Union , 491 US 164, 173; 109 S Ct 2363 ; 105 L Ed 2d 132 (1989), and Neal v United States , 516 US 284, 295; 116 S Ct 763; 133 L Ed 2d 709 (1996); Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm , 477 Mich 197, 278; 731 NW2d 41 (2007) (C AVANAGH , J., dissenting) (‘“Under the doctrine of stare decisi s, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdic tion become precedent which should not be lightly departed.’”), quoting People v Jamieson , 436 Mich 61, 79; 461 NW2d 884 (1990); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n , 473 Mich 562, 622; 7 02 NW2d 539 (2005) (W EAVER , J., dissenting) (“Correction for correction’s sake does not make sense. The case has not been made why the Court should not adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis in this case.”); Todd C. Berg, Hathaway attacks , Michigan Lawyers Weekly, October 27, 2008 (“‘People need to know what the law is,’ Hathaway said. ‘I believe in stare decisis. Something must be drastically wro ng for the court to overrule.’”); Lawyers' election guide: Judge Diane Marie Hathaway , Michigan Lawyers Weekly , October 30, 2006, in which Justice H ATHAWAY , then running for a position on the Cour t of Appeals, was quoted as saying: “[t]oo many appellate decisi ons are being decided by judicial activists who are overturning precedent.”

3 See, e.g., University of Michigan Regents v Titan Ins Co , 484 Mich 852 (2009) (directing the parties to consider whether Cameron v ACIA , 476 Mich 55 (2006), was correctly decided); McCormick v Carrier , 485 Mich 851 (2009) (granting leave to consider the plaintiff’s request to overrule Kreiner v Fischer , 471 Mich 109 (2004)); Lenawee Co Bd of Rd Comm’rs v State Auto Prop & Cas Ins Co , 485 Mich 853 (2009) (directing the parties to consider whether Miller v Chapman Contracting , 477 Mich 102 (2007), was correctly decided); Edry v Adelman , 485 Mich 901 (2009) (directing the parties to consider whether Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare Sys , 465 Mich 53 (2001), was correctly decided); Hoover v Michigan Mut Ins Co , 485 Mich 881 (2009) (directing the parties to consider whether Griffith v State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co , 472 Mich 521 (2005), was correctly decided); Lansing Schools Education Ass’n v Lansing Bd of3

other recent precedents, 4 and has outright overturned ot her recent precedents of this Court. 5 I can only assume that th e majority is making good on our Chief Justice’s pledge she made shortly before the shift in the Court’s philos ophical majority:

We the new majority will get the ship off the shoa ls and back on course, and we will undo a great deal of the damage that the Republicandominated court has done. Not only will we not ne glect our duties, we will not sleep on the bench. [6]

Today, the Court again orders reconsideration of a case that was decided just three years ago. Nothing in the law of th is State or the rationale of th at decision has changed in this

Ed , 485 Mich 962 (2009) (directing the parties to consider whether Lee v Macomb Co Bd of Comm’rs , 464 Mich 726 (2001), was correctly decided); Anglers of the AuSable v Dep’t of Environmental Quality , 485 Mich 1063 (2 010) (directing the parties to consider whether Michigan Citizens v Nestlé Waters , 479 Mich 280 (2007), and Preserve the Dunes v DEQ , 471 Mich 511 (2 004), were correctly decided); Colaianni v Stuart Frankel Development Corp , 485 Mich 1066 (2010) (granting to consider whether Trentadue v Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler , 479 Mich 378 (2007), was correctly decided) ; Idalski v Schwedt , ___ Mich ___ (2010) (Docket No. 139960, order entered May 21, 2010) (granting to consider whether Rory v Continental Ins Co , 473 Mich 457 (2 005), should be reconsidered).

4 See, e.g., Hardacre v Saginaw Vascular Services , 483 Mich 918 (2009), where the majority failed to follow Boodt v Borgess Med Ctr , 481 Mich 558 (2008); Sazima v Shepherd Bar & Restaurant , 483 Mich 924 (2009), where it failed to follow Chrysler v Blue Arrow Transport Lines , 295 Mich 606 (1940), and Camburn v Northwest School
Dist , 459 Mich 471 (1999); Vanslembrouck v Halperin , 483 Mich 965 (2009), where it failed to follow Vega v Lakeland Hosps , 479 Mich 243, 244 (2007); Juarez v Holbrook

, 483 Mich 970 (2009), wh ere it failed to follow Smith v Khouri , 481 Mich 519 (2008); Beasley v Michigan , 483 Mich 1025 (2009), Chambers v Wayne Co Airport Auth , 483 Mich 1081 (2009), and Ward v Michigan State Univ , 485 Mich 917 (2009) (Docket No. 138380, order entered October 23, 2009), where it failed to follow Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm , 477 Mich 197 (2007); Scott v State Farm Automobile Ins Co , 483 Mich 1032 (2009), where it failed to follow Thornton v Allstate Ins Co , 425 Mich 643 (1986), and Putkamer v Transamerica Ins Corp of America , 454 Mich 626 (1997); and Esselman v Garden City Hospital , 486 Mich ___ (2010) (Docket No. 139273, order entered April 23, 2010).

5 See, e.g., People v Feezel , 486 Mich ___ (2010) (Docket No. 138031, decided June 8, 2010), where the majority overruled People v Derror , 475 Mich 316 (2006).

6 She Said , Detroit Free Press, December 10, 2008

.I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 11, 2010

0525 4

short time. Accordingly, as I have in other similar orders, 7 I respectfully di ssent from this order.

C ORRIGAN , J., joins the statement of Y OUNG , J.

7 See, e.g., University of Michigan Regents , 484 Mich at 853; Lenawee Co Bd of Rd Comm’rs , 485 Mich at 855; Hoover , 485 Mich at 882; Lansing Schools Education Ass’n

, 485 Mich at 963; Anglers , 485 Mich at 1063; Colaianni , 485 Mich at 1066; Idalski

, ___ Mich at ___ (Docket No. 139960, order entered May 21, 2010).