Court Opinion

ID: 9504671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:57:24.968318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:05.970350
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
(dissenting). A per curiam opinion is an inappropriate mechanism for resolving this dispute. The issue is one of statutory interpretation concerning the phrase “special tools” found in MCL 211.9b. Resolution of the issue requires consideration of more than just the language found in that particular statute. It also implicates the language of MCL 211.10e, mandating the use of the assessor’s manual. Considering the statutes together, it is questionable whether a plain language analysis of MCL 211.9b adequately resolves the matter.
This Court should not, therefore, decide the dispute in a per curiam decision. Instead, it should allow full briefing and oral argument. I would grant leave to fully consider the effect of MCL 211.10e on MCL 211.9b.
Cavanagh, J., concurred with Kelly, J.