Court Opinion

ID: 9741277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:52:40.867157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:23.239608
License: Public Domain

Beasley, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result. People v McClain, 402 Mich 824; 260 NW2d 287 (1977), rev’g 81 Mich App 84; 264 NW2d 1 (1977), and which appears to reverse People v Bencheck, 360 Mich 430; 104 NW2d 191 (1960), is another one-sentence order included under the section entitled "Actions on Applications for Leave to Appeal from the Court of Appeals”.
Where, as here, and as in People v Van Dorsten, 409 Mich 942 (1980), rev’g 96 Mich App 356; 292 NW2d 134 (1979), these brief orders appear to reverse long established precedent, I do not believe the Supreme Court intends that we treat them as precedent. I would anticipate that where the Supreme Court desires to change the direction of the law, it will do so in a full opinion reciting reasons.
For this reason, I join with the majority and disregard McClain, supra.1_

 Other panels of this Court have attempted to reconcile the contrary results in People v Bencheck, supra, and People v McClain, supra. See, People v Hatcher, 83 Mich App 307; 268 NW2d 389 (1978), People v Price, 85 Mich App 57; 270 NW2d 707 (1978), People v Bentley, 94 Mich App 19; 287 NW2d 355 (1979).