Court Opinion

ID: 9503077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:36:52.075752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:17.682985
License: Public Domain

YOUNG, J.
(dissenting). I continue to adhere to my stated position in In re Certified Question (Wayne Co v Philip Morris Inc), 622 NW2d 518 (Mich, 2001), that this Court lacks the authority under state law to answer certified questions. However, my position has failed to *5carry the day. See proposed amendment of MCR 7.305, 462 Mich 1208 (2000). While this Court has chosen to assert the right to exercise that authority, I will exercise careful discretion before answering any certified question.
In light of the recent amendment of the relevant statute by 2010 PA 108, this case now only concerns a putative class of persons whose arguable claims arose before the effective date of the amendment. Accordingly, the legal significance of the question certified by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is considerably diminished. I would decline to answer the question in this instance.