Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

Order 

April 16, 2010 

138602 & (20) 

CATHERINE WILCOX, individually, and as 

Next Friend of ISAAC WILCOX, a minor, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

and 

SUNRISE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC., 

 Intervening Plaintiff, 

v SC: 138602 

 COA: 290515 

Kent CC: 08-010129-NF 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of October 26, 2009, the application for leave to appeal the July 1, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Hoover v 

Michigan Mutual Ins Co (Docket No. 138018). On order of the Court, the application for 

leave to appeal in Hoover having been dismissed on January 15, 2010, 485 Mich 1032 

(2010), the application is again considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

include among the issues to be briefed whether, or to what extent, the defendant is 

obligated to pay the plaintiffs personal protection insurance benefits under the no-fault 

act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., for housing expenses, modifications, and accommodations 

associated with the care of the plaintiffs’ son, Isaac Wilcox, and whether Griffith v State 

Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 472 Mich 521 (2005), was correctly decided. The 

motion for leave to participate as amicus curiae filed by the Coalition Protecting Auto 

No-Fault is GRANTED. We further ORDER that the stay entered by this Court on 

October 26, 2009 remains in effect until completion of this appeal. 

YOUNG, J. (dissenting). 

I respectfully dissent from the order in this case and instead would deny leave to 

appeal. The order directs the parties to discuss whether Griffith v State Farm Mutual 
2

Automobile Ins Co1

 was correctly decided. I believe it was correctly decided. While it is 

certainly the prerogative of the Court to reconsider this case, this order is another instance 

where the majority seems to retreat from its previously stated fidelity to stare decisis.2

 

1

 472 Mich 521 (2005).

2

 See, e.g., Pohutski v City of Allen Park, 465 Mich 675, 712 (2002) (KELLY, J., 

dissenting) (“[I]f each successive Court, 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 

(2003) (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting) (“We have overruled our precedents when the 

intervening development of the law has ‘removed or weakened the conceptual 

underpinnings from the prior decision, or where the later law has rendered the decision 

irreconcilable with competing legal doctrines or policies.’ . . . Absent those changes or 

compelling evidence bearing on Congress’ original intent . . . our system demands that 

we adhere to our prior interpretations 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 (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting) (‘“Under the doctrine of 

stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent 

jurisdiction become precedent which should not be lightly departed.’”), quoting People v 

Jamieson, 436 Mich 61, 79 (1990); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 622 

(2005) (WEAVER, 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 wrong for the court to overrule.’”); 

Lawyers’ election guide: Judge Diane Marie Hathaway, Michigan Lawyers Weekly, 

October 30, 2006, in which Justice HATHAWAY, then running for a position on the Court 

of Appeals, was quoted as saying: “[t]oo many appellate decisions are being decided by 

judicial activists who are overturning precedent.” 
3

Since the shift in the Court’s philosophical majority in January 2009, the majority 

has pointedly sought out precedents only recently decided3

 and has failed to give effect to 

other recent precedents of this Court.4

 Today, the Court again orders reconsideration of a 

case that was decided just five years ago. It should be obvious to all but the most casual 

observer of the Court that a pattern is being established: the new majority is intent on 

“revisiting” (overruling) the decisions of the last ten years. Ironically, its consistent 

signals to the Bar that the jurisprudence of the last decade is in play seems an 

unnecessary prod to those who would eagerly return to the days when “judicial policy,” 

rather than the language of the statute, ruled. 

 

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 of 

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 (2010) (directing the parties to consider 

whether Michigan Citizens v Nestlé Waters, 479 Mich 280 (2007), and Preserve the 

Dunes v DEQ, 471 Mich 511 (2004), 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). 

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), where 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), where it 

failed to follow Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197 (2007); and 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). 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 16, 2010 

p0413 

 

4

Other than the change in the composition of this Court in 2009, nothing in the law 

of this State or the rationale of that decision has changed in this short time. Accordingly, 

as I have in other similar orders,5

 I respectfully dissent from this order. 

CORRIGAN, J., joins the statement of YOUNG, J. 

 

5

 See, e.g., University of Michigan Regents, supra, 484 Mich at 853; Lenawee Co Bd of 

Rd Comm’rs, supra, 485 Mich at 855; Hoover, supra, 485 Mich at 882; Lansing Schools 

Education Ass’n, supra, 485 Mich at 963; Anglers, supra, 485 Mich at 1063; Colaianni, 

supra, 485 Mich at 1066.