Court Opinion

ID: 9730999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:30:17.551788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:12.087887
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(dissenting). The majority affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals that rejected Billy D. Mosko’s claim that the circuit judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury regarding fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. 190 Mich App 204; 475 NW2d 866 (1991). I would deny leave to appeal.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals is reported, and thus is a "first-out” opinion binding on other panels of the Court of Appeals and the trial courts. The issue is thus settled unless this Court were to grant leave to appeal1 and reach a different decision, or the same decision on a different analysis.2
Peremptory disposition, without plenary consideration, full briefing, oral argument and an opportunity for the profession to file briefs as amici *507curiae, should be reserved for cases in which the law is settled and factual assessment is not required.3 In the instant case, as indicated in the majority opinion, legal assessment is required; the issue resolved by the Court of Appeals was left open by this Court in People v Beach, 429 Mich 450; 418 NW2d 861 (1988). Peremptory disposition is not appropriate._

 Mosko applied for leave to appeal; the prosecutor did not.

 In affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals, this Court adopts the analysis of the majority of the Court of Appeals panel.

 People v Wright, 439 Mich 914, 914-915 (1992) (Levin, J., dissenting); Roek v Chippewa Valley Bd of Ed, 430 Mich 3Í4, 322; 422 NW2d 680 (1988) (Levin, J., separate opinion); Grames v Amerisure Ins Co, 434 Mich 867, 868-875 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting); People v Little, 434 Mich 752, 769-770; 456 NW2d 237 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting); People v Wrenn, 434 Mich 885, 885-886 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting); Harkins v Northwest Activity Ctr, Inc, 434 Mich 896, 899 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting); Dep’t of Social Services v American Commercial Liability Ins Co, 435 Mich 508, 515; 460 NW2d 194 (1990) (Levin, J., separate opinion); Yahr v Garcia, 436 Mich 872 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting); Universal Underwriters Ins Co v Vallejo, 436 Mich 873, 873-874 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting); People v Stephens, 437 Mich 903, 903-910 (1991) (Levin, J., dissenting); People v Berkey, 437 Mich 40, 54; 467 NW2d 6 (1991) (Levin, J., dissenting); Turner v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 437 Mich 35, 38-39; 467 NW2d 4 (1991) (Levin, J., separate opinion); Lepior v Venice Twp, 437 Mich 955, 956-966 (1991) (Levin, J., dissenting); Rochester Hills v Southeastern Oakland Co Resource Recovery Authority, 440 Mich 852, 852-856 (1992) (Levin, J., dissenting).
See Schweiker v Hansen, 450 US 785, 791; 101 S Ct 1468; 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 US 438, 457-458; 99 S Ct 698; 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 S Ct 1228; 39 L Ed 2d 693 (1974)] [Rehnquist, J., dissenting]”).