Court Opinion

ID: 9518812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:02:41.2853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:41.245277
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(concurring). If the local court rule in question had simply provided that a motion to reinstate “shall be filed” within 1 year of the dismissal for lack of progress, I would have been inclined to vote to interpret the rule as allowing a circuit judge to grant reinstatement out of time. See Guastello v. Citizens Mutual Insurance Company (1968), 11 Mich App 120, 132, et seq. But the rule as written loaves no room for that interpretation. The words “in no event” must be read as meaning “no exceptions, even in meritorious cases.”
The general court rules now provide that no local rule shall become effective until approved by the *732Supreme Court (GrCR 1963, 927 [2]) but that requirement was not added until November 2, 1964. Previously rule 927 (2) required advance notice to the Supreme Court of the proposed adoption of a local rule, and stated that the adoption or continuance of local rules was subject to the superintending control of the Supreme Court, but did not state that a local rule would not become effective until approved by the Supreme Court. It is not clear whether the local rule in question has been approved by the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, it is entirely clear that if there is to be a change for this or future cases in this local rule which denies to Wayne circuit judges powers enjoyed by circuit judges in jurisdictions which do not have such a local rule, such change must be made by the Supreme Court. Const 1963, art 6, §§ 4, 5.
The facts and circumstances of this case demonstrate the impolicy of a hard-and-fast rule denying to any court short of the Supreme Court power to make exceptions in particular cases. Such power, if conferred, would, like all dispensing power, be subject to a rule of reason and to review for abuse of discretion.
T. Gr. Kavanagh, P. J., concurred with Levin, J.