Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices 

# Order

April 25, 2011

Rehearing Nos. 576, 578

5 October 2010

138863-66

ANGLERS OF THE AuSABLE, INC., MAYER FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LLC, and NANCY A. FORCIER TRUST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, SC: 138863-138866 v COA: 279301, 279306, 280265, 280266 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTA L Otsego CC: 06-011697-CE QUALITY, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, and MERIT ENERGY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motions fo r rehearing are considered, and they are GRANTED. This Court’s opin ion of December 29, 2010 is VACATED and this appeal is DISMISSED on grounds of mootness, for reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion reported at 488 Mich 91 (20 10). The Court of Appeals opinion at 283 Mich App 115 (2009) is also VACATED. See Grand Traverse Co Prosecutor v Meijer, Inc ( In re Investigative Subpoenas ), 488 Mich 1032 (2011); United States v Munsingwear, Inc , 340 US 36, 39-40 (1950) (“The established practice of the Court in deali ng with a civil case
. . . which has become moot while on its wa y here, or pending our decision on the merits, is to reverse or vacate the judgment below. . . . When that procedure is followed, the rights of all parties are preserved. . . .”).

“T[he] judicial power . . . is the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction.” Anway v Grand Rapids R Co , 211 Mich 592, 616 (1920) (quoting Muskrat v United States , 219 US 346 [1911]) (emphasis added). As a result, “this Court does not reac h moot questions or declare principles or rules of law that have no practical legal effect in the case before” it. Federated Publications, Inc v City of Lansing , 467 Mich 98, 112 (2002). In accordance with these principles, this case is moot because it presents “nothing but abstract questions2

of law, which do not rest upon existing facts or rights.” Gildemeister v Lindsay , 212 Mich 299, 302 (1920). In light of the fact that: (a) defendant has quit-claimed its
easement interest back to the riparian owner; (b) defendant no longer has the physical means of discharging water into Kolke Creek or the Au Sable River; (c) defendant is now disposing of the water by alternative means; (d) defendant no long er has a permit that allows discharge into Kolke Creek or the Au Sable River; and (e) the Department of Environmental Quality has attested that “the re no longer exists th e possibility of surface water discharge to Kolke Creek or the Au Sable River,” this is a case of obvious mootness. There is “no reasonable expecta tion that the wrong w ill be repeated,” United

States v WT Grant , 345 US 629, 633 (1953), because the very harms that pl aintiffs sought to enjoin no longer exist.

Y OUNG , C.J. ( concurring ).

I fully join this Court’s order and write only to answer a cr iticism the dissenting statement raises. Justice Cavanagh quotes my dissen ting opinion in United States Fidelity Ins & Guar Co v Michigan Ca tastrophic Claims Ass’n (On Reh’g) , 484 Mich 1, 27 (2009) (Y OUNG , J., dissenting), and rhetorically asks the question I raised in that case – “What changed?” – that would lead me to support rehearing in the instant case.

The answer is simple: the majority opinion in USF&G prevailed over my dissenting opinion, and I see no reason to re main bound by a pos ition that failed to receive majority support two years ago. 1 Today’s order merely applies the very same principles that former Justice W EAVER and Justices H ATHAWAY

, M ARILYN K ELLY and notably Justice C AVANAGH himself applied in decidi ng to grant rehearing in USF&G

. And although Justice C AVANAGH dissents from the order in this case, he does not repudiate his decision to grant rehearing in USF&G . Instead, his dissent in the instant case is fully premised on his belief that this Court’s previous dis position on the mootness issue “was properly decided.” Because I continue to hold the opposite belief—that this Court erred in issuing an opinion on the merits of a moot case 2 —I fully join today’s
order.

Z AHRA , J. ( concurring ).

1 Moreover, Justice Z AHRA makes a persuasive argument in his concurring statement to this order that my dissenting opinion in USF&G interpreted a standard on rehearing that is inapplicable in this Court. Rather, “[n]othing” in the text of the court rules pertaining to this Court “supports the notion that th e Court may only grant rehearing where new legal arguments are presented.” Post , at ___.

2 See my dissent in the original Anglers opinion, 488 Mich at 91.3

I concur in the order granting rehearing, which vacates this Court’s opinion of December 29, 2010, as well as th e Court of Appeals’ opinion of March 31, 2 009. I write separately to address the propriety of granti ng a motion for rehearing when there has been a change in the makeup of the Court betwee n the time the Court’s initial opinion is released and the date the motion for rehearing is decided.

MCR 7.313(E), this Court’s rule gove rning motions for rehearing, is a discretionary rule as it does not define a st andard under which this Court is to decide motions for rehearing. 3 Thus, whether to grant or deny th e motion is left to the discretion of the Court. Historically, in exercising disc retion, the Justices of this Court consider whether the Court properly interpreted and app lied the law. This explains why Justices typically cast votes on rehearing that are c onsistent with their initial view of the case. 4

3 MCR 7.313(E) provides:

(1) To move for rehearing, a party must file within 21 days after the opinion was filed (the date of an opinion is stamped on the upper right corner of the first page):
(a) 24 copies of a motion prepared as provided in MCR 7.309, if the opinion decided a case pl aced on a session calendar; or (b) 14 typewritten copies of a motion, if the opini on decided a noncal endar case; and
(c) proof that a copy was served on the parties.
The motion for rehearing must include reasons why the Court should modify its opinion.
(2) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, timely filing of a motion postpones issuance of the Court's judg ment order until the motion is denied by the Court or, if granted, until at least 21 days after the filing of the Court's opinion on rehearing.
(3) Any party may answer a motion wi thin 14 days after it is served by filing
(a) 24 or 14 copies of the motion, depending on whether the motion was filed under subrule (D)(1)(a) or (b); and.
(b) proof that a copy was served on the other parties.
(4) Unless ordered by the Court, there is no oral argument.

4 See e.g., Bezeau v Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc , 488 Mich 904 (2010) (Y OUNG

, J., dissenting); Pellegrino v AMPCO System Parking , 487 Mich 860 (2 010) (showing that

W EAVER and H ATHAWAY , JJ, would grant rehearing); People v Richmond

, 486 Mich 1041 (2010) (C ORRIGAN , J, concurring in part and dissenting in part); Jackson v Estate of

Green , 485 Mich 869 (2009) (M ARKMAN , J., dissenting); Boodt v Borgess Med Ctr , 482 Mich 1001, 1002-1004 (2008) (C AVANAGH , J., dissenting); Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp , 472 Mich 1201 (2005) (C AVANAGH , M ARILYN K ELLY

, and W EAVER JJ., dissenting).4

Generally speaking, a Justice w ill only change his or her vo te when the legal arguments on rehearing persuade the Justic e that his or her initial view of the case was erroneous. Not surprisingly, Justices M ARILYN K ELLY

, C AVANAGH

, H ATHAWAY

, M ARKMAN and
Chief Justice Y OUNG view this case in the same light that they did on the date the original opinion was issued. The instant motion thus ri ses or falls on the votes cast by myself and
Justice M ARY B ETH K ELLY . Because we were not seated on the Court when the initial opinion was released, we have no established positio n in this case.

It is suggested that Justice M ARY B ETH K ELLY and I ought not cast our votes based on the merit of the legal arguments and the correctness of the opinion that is the subject of rehearing and, instead, limit our review to a determin ation whether any new arguments have been presented to this Court that were not previously presented at the time the opinion under review was released . Nothing in MCR 7.313(E), however, supports the notion that the Court may only grant rehearing where new legal arguments are presented. Significantly, such a constraint exists in the pertin ent court rule for the Court of Appeals. Specifically, MCR 7.215 (I)(1), which governs motions for rehearing and reconsideration in the Court of Appeals, st ates that “[m]otions for reconsideration are subject to the restrictions contained in MC R 2.119(F)(3).” MCR 2.119(F)(3) in turn provides that:

Generally, and without restricting the discretion of the court, a motion for rehearing or reconsideration which mere ly presents the same issues ruled on by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. The moving party must dem onstrate a palpable error by which the court and the parties have been misled and show that a different disposition
of the motion must result from correction of the error.

The absence of any referen ce to MCR 2.119(F) in the rule gove rning motions for rehearing in this Court, and the express refere nce to it in the equivalent Court of Appeals rule, leads me to conclude that in decidi ng the pending motion it is appropriate to consider whether the Court’s December 29, 2010 opinion was properl y decided, rather than limit review to the question regardin g whether new arguments are presented on rehearing. 5

5 Although this case presents a motion for re hearing, not a motion for reconsideration, I believe the same analysis woul d apply in considering a moti on for reconsideration. See MCR 7.313(F). Moreover, this analysis is wholly consistent w ith MCR 1.103, which provides:

The Michigan Court Rules govern practice and procedure in all courts established by the constituti on and laws of the Stat e of Michigan. Rules stated to be applicable onl y in a specific court or on ly to a specific type of proceeding apply only to th at court or to that type of proceedi ng and control over general rules.5

This same conclusion has been reached by virtually every Jus tice faced with this
situation. Then-Justice A LTON D AVIS voted to grant reconsider ation where he concluded the Court’s prior order was erroneous. Duncan v State of Michigan , 488 Mich 957 (2010) (D AVIS , J., concurring). Likewise, Justice H ATHAWAY voted to grant rehearing and vacate an opinion orig inally issued before sh e joined the Court. United States Fidelity Ins & Guaranty Co v Michigan Ca tastrophic Claims Ass’n (On Rehearing) , 484 Mich 1 (2009). 6 Then-Justice C ORRIGAN and Chief Justice Y OUNG did the same in McCready v Hoffius , 459 Mich 1235 (1999). History informs us that this is not a recent trend in the Court. See, e.g., Harmsen v Fizzell , 354 Mich 60 (1958); Weller v Mancha

, 353 Mich 189 (1958); Rumney v Coville , 51 Mich 186 (1883). 7

MCR 7.313(E) and MCR 7.313(F) govern motions for rehearing and reconsideration in this Court as part of subchapter 7.300, which houses rules applicable only to this Court

. They are therefore rules stated to be applicable only in a specific court and control over the general rule, 2.119(F), in governing motions for rehearing and reconsideration. As MCR 7.313(E) and (F) are the controlling rules, MCR 2.119(F)(3) would not apply unless somehow incorporated by those rules. MCR 1.103 cannot be read to incorporate MCR 2.119(F)(3) into the rules applicable to motions for rehe aring in the Supreme Court. To do so would render meaningless the expr ess reference to MCR 2.119(F)(3) in the rehearing rule applicable to the Court of Appeals, MCR 7.215(I)(1 ). Simply put, the express reference to MCR 2.119 (F)(3) in the Court of Appeals rule would be unnecessary if MCR 1.103 already made MCR 2.119(F)(3) the controlling standard in all Michigan appellate courts.
In an attempt to buttre ss his argument, Justice C AVANAGH relies on the public internal operating procedures (IOPs) of this Co urt. However, reference to the IOPs is not helpful in this analysis. First, these pr ocedures are nonbinding a nd merely observatory guidelines, subject to change at any time without notice. More over, these nonbinding procedures suggest only that MCR 2.119(F)(3) be incorporated into review of a motion for reconsideration. Significantly, the IO P for rehearing motions, IOP I(J), makes no reference to MCR 2.119(F)(3). Thus, even if the nonbinding IOPs were looked to for guidance, the conclusion must be reached th at MCR 2.119(F)(3) wo uld not apply here because it does not apply to motions for rehearing brought in this Court.

6 Justice H ATHAWAY also would have granted rehearing in Moore v Secura Ins , 483 Mich 928 (2009), where the opinion was issued before she joined the Court.

7 Notwithstanding Justice C AVANAGH ’s assertion that the memb ers of this Court have generally applied MCR 2.119(F)(3) as th e standard for granting rehearing and reconsideration, in each case that he cites the justices referenci ng MCR 2.119(F)(3) were adhering to their previously stated view of th e case. Further, in no decision of this Court has a majority ever applied MCR 2.119(F)(3) as the governing standard for deciding a
motion for reconsiderati on or rehearing. In United States Fidelity Ins & Guar Co , 484 Mich at 11 n 12, the majority cited to MCR 2.119(F)(3) in responding to the dissent that6

The inquiry does not end, in my opinion, upon review of the correctness of the
decision under review. As is evident from the substance of the dissent in this case, which
echoes the dissent of Chief Justice Y OUNG in United States Fidelity Ins & Guar Co , 484 Mich at 27, it can be unsettli ng to this Court wh en within the peri od for rehearing, interpretation of the law changes due to a chan ge in the composition of the Court. See
also Sazima v Shepherd Bar & Restaurant , 483 Mich 924 (2009) (M ARKMAN , J., dissenting). Because of these concerns, my di scretion is also guided by consideration of the jurisprudential significance of the issues presented on rehearing.

Justice C AVANAGH claims that the newly compos ed Court is “undoing recent precedent.” Like every Justice on this Court, I respect the role stare decisis plays in Michigan’s jurisprudence. That said, every Justice on th is Court, with the exception of
Justice M ARY B ETH K ELLY and myself, has at one time or another found it appropriate to overrule precedent because the Ju stice concluded doing so serv ed the best interests of Michigan’s jurisprudence. See e.g., Regents of University of Michigan v Titan Ins Co

, 487 Mich 289 (2010); Robinson v City of Detroit , 462 Mich 439 (2000). In my view, the order granting rehearing and vacating the De cember 29, 2010 opinion does not undo precedent; it restores precedent. Simply st ated, the Court disregarded the mootness
doctrine so that it could overrule Preserve the Dunes, Inc v Dep’t of Environmental Quality , 471 Mich 508 (2004), and change the co urse of over a century of established Michigan water law. Rehearin g is properly granted here, not only because the underlying dispute is moot, but also because Preserve the Dunes properly interprets Michigan law. 8

I also disagree with Justice C AVANAGH that the order granting rehearing runs afoul
of City of Erie v Pap’s AM , 529 US 277 (2000). When cons idering the instan t case in its procedural entirety, the situa tion here is unlike the one in City of Erie

. 9 In particular,

the prior decision to grant rehearing was cons istent with that standard. A majority, however, did not apply MCR 2.119(F)(3) when this Court actually granted rehearing in
that case. United States Fidelity Ins & Guar Co v Michigan Cata strophic Claims Ass’n v Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass’n , 483 Mich 918 (2009).

8 It is inconsequential that in considering the merits of this Court’s Decmber 29, 2010 opinion that this Court previously denied th e motion to dismiss for mootness. Defendants
raise the mootness issue in th eir motions for rehearing. Moreover, the mootness doctrine is jurisdictional as it concerns a court’s inhe rent judicial power, and therefore, can be raised at any time. See People v Richmond , 486 Mich 29, 34 (20 10). Consideration of the correctness of a decision thus necessarily requires considera tion regarding whether this Court acted within the scope of its jurisdiction and judicial power.

9 In City of Erie , the U.S. Supreme Court rejected th e plaintiff’s argumen t that the case was moot after the plaintiff voluntarily clos ed his nude dancing establishment and sold7

Merit Energy Company’s alterna tive plan for remediating the pollutant in its groundwater was largely dictated by the circuit court decision to vaca te Merit’s permit allowing discharge into Kolke Creek . As Chief Justice Y OUNG set forth in his dissenting opinion:

The lead opinion claims that “the trial court has left open the door for Merit to discharge treated water into Kolke Creek at a lower than originally proposed rate.” This cl aim appears plausible when looking solely at the circuit court’s June 26, 2007, amended opinion. But that opinion was superseded by subsequent events. In particular, the circuit court’s January 31, 2008, opinion ru led that the DEQ had erroneously issued a permit to Merit. Both the Co urt of Appeals and, eventually, this Court denied defendants’ applications fo r leave to appeal, leaving intact the circuit court’s opinion. Accordingly, even if the circuit court’s June 26, 2007, decision “left open the door for Merit to discharge treated water into Kolke Creek,” its January 31, 2008, d ecision closed that door, and this
Court’s denial of leave bolted the door shut. Further, without either physical access to Kolke Creek or a valid permit, Merit has no lawful authority to discharge any amount of anything into Kolke Creek. [ Anglers of the Au Sable v DEQ , 488 Mich 69, at 107 (2010) (footnote omitted).]

Thus, unlike the voluntary a nd unilateral actions on the part of the plaintiff in City of

Erie , the vacation of Merit’s permit and this Court’s decision to deny leave came about independently from Merit and w ithout action on the part of Merit. As a result, the situation here is not one where a party’s volun tary actions are an attempt to insulate a favorable decision from review. Rather, the independent court action invalidating Merit’s permit moves this case entirel y outside the concerns raised in City of Erie

. 10
Accordingly, I concur in the Court’s order to grant rehearing.

M ARY B ETH K ELLY , J., joins the statement of Z AHRA , J.

C AVANAGH , J. ( dissenting ).

I dissent from the majority’s decision to grant defendants’ motions for rehearing
and vacate this Court’s D ecember 29, 2010 opinion. Contrary to Justice Z AHRA ’s belief that this Court “disregarded the mootness doctrine,” this C ourt previously considered, at great length, defendants’ arguments related to this issue, as eviden ced by my concurring

his property because the plaintiff could reopen his business in another building, as it was still incorporated. City of Erie , 529 US at 284-288 and 302- 303, Scalia, J., concurring.

10 See also Anglers of the Au Sable , 486 Mich at 986, n 6 (C ORRIGAN , J., dissenting), and
id . at 989, n 10 (Y OUNG , J., dissenting) persua sively distinguishing City of Erie from the
instant case.8

statement and the three “emphatic[]” dissenting statements to this Co urt’s June 18, 2010 order denying defendant Merit’s motion to dismiss for mootness. Anglers of the AuSable, Inc v Dep’t of Environmental Quality , 486 Mich 982, 994 (2010) (Y OUNG

, J., dissenting). Defendants make no new arguments in their cu rrent motions, and the June 18, 2010 order was properly decided, ther efore, reconsideration on m ootness grounds is improper. 11

11 I cannot join Justice Z AHRA ’s belief that MCR 2.119(F)(3) does not apply to this Court’s review of motions for rehearing and r econsideration. Although it is true that MCR 7.313(E) and MCR 7.313(F) apply only to this Court and do not expressly crossreference MCR 2.119(F)(3), MCR 1.103 addresses the general applicability of the Court
Rules and states that the rules “govern practice and procedure in all courts . . . . Rules stated to be applicable only in a specific court or only to a specific type of proceeding apply only to that court or to that type of proceeding and co ntrol over the general rules.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, because MCR 7.3 13(E) and MCR 7.313(F) offer no standard for considering motions for reconsideration and rehearing and MCR 2.119(F)(3) does not state that it is applicable only in specific c ourts or to a specific type of proceeding, it appears that it is applicable to this Court’s consideration of motions for reconsideration and rehearing.

This Court’s own publicly available Intern al Operating Procedur es further support the premise that MCR 2.119(F)(3) applies to this Court’s review of motions for rehearing and reconsideration. Indeed, IOP I(E)(5)(b)( ii) states “MCR 7.313(E) does not specify grounds for a motion for reconsideration. The same general principles that govern motions for reconsideration in trial courts ap ply. MCR 2.119(F)(3).” I acknowledge that
the introduction to the Internal Operating Procedures explains that “[t]he Michigan Court Rules are and remain the governing procedures of this Court,” but the introduction also states that the procedures “could be grouped under the heading ‘How Things Work at the Supreme Court’” and that “the goal of [the pr ocedures] was to set fo rth those features of our internal procedures that might benefit the appellate practitioner.” Further, IOP I(E)(5)(b)(ii) is consistent w ith MCR 1.103’s directive th at the Court Rules “govern practice and procedure in all co urts” unless otherwise stated. Thus, because our Internal Operating Procedures are available for public review and are inte nded to assist the appellate practitioner in navigatin g a course through this Court, I believe that they should not be summarily ignored.

Finally, although I believe that MCR 2. 119(F)(3) does apply to this Court’s
consideration of motions for re consideration and rehearing, I agree that the Court retains an element of discretion given that MCR 2.119(F)(3) states th at it “[g]enerally” applies
and that it does not “res trict[] the discretion of the court. ” Nevertheless, the members of this Court have generally a pplied MCR 2.119(F)(3) as th e standard for determining whether granting a motion for reconsiderati on or rehearing is proper. See, e.g., Duncan v
State , 486 Mich 1071, 1074 (2010) (M ARILYN K ELLY , C.J., dissenting); McCormick v

Carrier , 485 Mich 851-852 (2009) (W EAVER , J., concurring); Univ of Michigan Regents

v Titan Ins Co , 484 Mich 852, 853-854 (2009) (Y OUNG , J., dissenting); United States9

Apparently, some members of the majority are now willing to rely merely on the everchanging nature of the Au Sable River as reason to reverse course, contrary to their previous statements. Indeed, only two short years ago, Chief Justice Y OUNG eloquently
bemoaned this Court’s reconsideration of a matter after a change in this Court’s composition. In his dissent in United States Fidelity In s & Guar Co v Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass’n (On Rehearing) , 484 Mich 1, 27 (2009), the Chief Justice
stated:

I. WHAT CHANGED?

The facts have not changed. The te xt of the statute at issue has not changed. The parties’ arguments ha ve not changed. And the rationale advanced in the opinions of this Co urt has not changed. Yet, within a matter of months, a decision of this Cour t, thoughtfully briefed, argued, and considered by seven justices , is no longer worth the paper it was written on. Even the casual observer, however, does not really need to ask why. The reason is obvious: . . . the compositi on of this Court changed.

Now, in what appears to be “ déjà vu all over again,” Chief Justice Y OUNG is happy to join in our newly composed Court’s undoing of recent precedent. I find interesting Chief
Justice Y OUNG ’s freshly announced willingne ss to forgo hi s position in USF&G because he now sees “no reason to remain bound by a position that failed to receive majority support two years ago.” Ante ___ . While Chief Justice Y OUNG is obviously free to change his mind, it is worth noting that hi s decision comes now, when it suits his previous dissenting position in this case, yet he consistently held fast to his USF&G dissent, see Lansing Sch Educ Ass’n v Lansing Bd of Educ , 485 Mich 966, 967 n 10 (2009) (Y OUNG

, J., dissenting); University of Michigan Regents v Titan Ins Co , 484 Mich 852, 853-855 (2009) (Y OUNG , J., dissenting), even as recen tly as the end of last term.
See McCormick v Carrier , 487 Mich 180, 266 (2010) (M ARKMAN

, J., dissenting).

Also, Justice Z AHRA errs in the application of his newly-created standard for reviewing motions for reconsider ation and rehearing. Even if one accepts that a Justice may consider the merits of the legal ar guments, correctness of the opinion, and

Fidelity Ins & Guar Co v Michig an Catastrophic Claims Ass’n

, 484 Mich 1, 3 n 12 (2009); People v Osaghae , 460 Mich 529, 535 (1999) (M ARILYN K ELLY , J., dissenting). See, also, IOP I(E)(5)(b)(ii). Furthermore, older caselaw from this Court indicates that MCR 2.119(F)(3) reflects this Court’s hist oric standard for deciding motions for
reconsideration and rehe aring. See, e.g., Thompson v Jarvis , 40 Mich 526 (1879) (denying a motion for rehearing because “ nothing [was] suggested beyond what was considered by the court upon orig inal arguments . . . .”).10

jurisprudential significance of the issues presented, 12 Justice Z AHRA

, in concurring with this Court’s order reversing on mootness grounds, considers the merits of the legal arguments and correctness of the June 18, 2010 order , not this Court’s December 29, 2010 opinion. Defendants di d not file a motion for reconsid eration of this Court’s June 18, 2010 order; therefore, the majority’s r eaching to grant rehear ing of this Court’s subsequent opinion is quite a stretch.

Furthermore, Justice Z AHRA ’s claim that this Court’s order “restores precedent”
because it breathes new life into Preserve the Dunes, Inc v Dep’t of Environmental Quality , 471 Mich 508 (2 004), is true only fro m a very narrow perspective. As Justice

M ARILYN K ELLY explained in her concurring opinion in this case, “ Preserve the Dunes is of relatively recent vintage, ha ving been decide d a mere six years ago. . . . Moreover,
Preserve the Dunes represented a sea change in one area of the law and toppled settled interpretations of MEPA that had existed for nearly 30 years.” Anglers of the AuSable, Inc v Dep’t of Environmental Quality , 488 Mich 69, 88 (2010) (M ARILYN K ELLY , J., concurring) (citing Eyde v Michigan , 393 Mich 453, 454 (1975); Ray v Mason Co Drain
Comm’r

, 393 Mich 294, 304-305 (1975); West Mich Environm ental Action Council v
Natural Resources Comm , 405 Mich 741, 751, (1979); Nemeth v Abonmarche Dev, Inc

, 457 Mich 16 (1998)). Thus, in essence, the majority believes that rehearing is proper in this case merely because it perm its them to resuscitate a prec edent with whic h they agree.

Finally, as I explained in my concurring statement to the order denying the motion to dismiss for mootness, Anglers of the AuSable

, 486 Mich at 982-985, this case is not

moot. The United States Supreme Co urt has warned appellate co urts to be particularly wary of finding an issue moot when there rema ins “a public interest in having the legality of the practices settled,” United States v WT Grant Co , 345 US 629, 632-633 (1953), and when the party seeking to moot the issue is the party who prevailed in the lower court. City of Erie v Pap’s AM , 529 US 277, 287-288 (2000). Such concern is necessary because any effort to circumvent the Court’ s jurisdiction by a party through its voluntary actions is repugnant to an appellate cour t’s “interest in preventing litigants from attempting to manipulate the Court’s jurisd iction to insulate a favorable decision from
review.” Id . at 288. See, also, City News & Novelty, Inc v City of Waukesha , 531 US 278, 283-284 (2001). The ma jority’s decision to grant th e motions for rehearing and dismiss this case as moot despite the utter lack of new argumen ts relating to this issue is perhaps even more repugnan t to this principle.

The majority’s decision to vacate this Court’s opinion leaves unanswered several questions of significant public concern, in cluding whether plaintiffs have a cause of

12 I would note that Justice Z AHRA ’s new standard will almost always boil down to a
Justice’s decision on the “correctness of the opinion” because it would be rare for this Court to consider an issue that is not juri sprudentially significant, see MCR 7.302(B)(3),
nor does this Court often ente rtain frivolous legal arguments.11

action to challenge the DEQ’s decision to i ssue a permit to discha rge water into Kolke Creek and the proper method to determine the reasonableness of wate r use. Further, and perhaps most importantly, th e majority’s decision encourages gamesmanship by permitting defendants to “insulate a favorable decision from review” because defendants’
unilateral actions were the basis for Merit’s motion to dismiss for mootness, just as in City of Erie . The plaintiff-respondent in City of Erie filed an affidavit after the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari stating that he had closed hi s business, sold his property, and never intende d to operate a nude danci ng establishment again. City of Erie

, 529 US at 284-288, 302-3 03 (Scalia, J., concurring). The City of Erie Court reasoned that the plaintiff-respondent could s till obtain another build ing and reopen the establishment, given that it was sti ll incorporated under state law. City of Erie , 529 US at 287. Similarly, in this case, defendant Me rit could obtain another easement and pursue a discharge that would constitute a reasonable use of the water under the existing test. The City of Erie Court also reasoned that both partie s had a continuing interest in the litigation because the city co uld not enforce its ordinance under the lower court’s decision, even against other parties, and the plaintiff-respondent still had an interest in preserving the lower court’s deci sion in favor of his rights. Id . at 288. In City of Erie

, the city’s inability to enforce its ordinance against th e plaintiff-respon dent and other inhabitants of the city constitu ted an ongoing injury. Similarl y, here, plaintiffs’ ability to enforce their riparian interests against defe ndant and other parties seeking to use Kolke
Creek will continue to be affect ed by the conclusion that plai ntiffs lack a cause of action to challenge the DEQ’s decisi on to issue a permit to disc harge water into Kolke Creek and the unanswered questi on regarding the proper method to determine the
reasonableness of water use.

The majority attempts to address this problem by va cating the Court of Appeals opinion in this case, but its ef forts fail. By erroneously conc luding that this case is moot, the majority rewards defendants by insulati ng them from the unfavorable result of this Court’s well-reasoned opinions. Furthermore, the cases cited by the majority in support of its decision to vacate the Court of Appeal s opinion address situa tions where appellate review was “prevented through happenstance ,” United States v Munsingwear, Inc , 340 US 36, 40 (1950) (emphasis added ), i.e., “due to circumstances unattributable to any of the parties .” Karcher v May , 484 US 72, 83 (1987) (em phasis added). See, also, US Bancorp Mortg Co v Bonner Mall Partnership , 513 US 18, 22-23 (1994 ). And, while the United States Supreme Court ha s concluded that, in some s ituations, vacation of a lower court decision is proper when a party who seek s review of the merits of an adverse ruling is frustrated by the “unilateral acti on of the party who prevailed below,” US Bancorp , 513 US at 25, that Court has also concluded that unilateral attemp ts to moot a case only after leave to appeal is granted shou ld not be well received. See City of Erie , 529 US at 288 (noting that the defendant raised the mootne ss issue after the Court granted certiorari). Indeed, in this case, defendan ts’ attempts to moot this case and insulate its favorable result began only after this Cour t granted leave to appeal.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 April 25, 2011

t0421 12

Thus, I cannot agree that this case presen ts no justiciable issues. Rather, because the mootness issue was already thoughtfully considered by this Court and defendants merely present the same unconvincing argum ents, I would deny defendants’ motions for rehearing.

M ARILYN K ELLY , and H ATHAWAY , JJ., join the statement of C AVANAGH , J.