Court Opinion

ID: 9504155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:55:46.891804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:53.649713
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
(dissenting). Because I see no need to delay ruling on these cases until next term, I must dissent from the order. The issues in these two cases were fully briefed and argued before this Court in May 2006. We later asked for additional briefing on the likely practical consequences should we overrule Sewell v Clearing Machine Corp, 419 Mich 56 (1984).
The parties and the amici curiae dutifully and quickly filed supplemental briefs. The court clerk received the last of them on June 23, 2006. Therefore, we have had three weeks to consider all the parties’ latest filings. This has provided ample time to weigh the implications of overruling Sewell.
Those favoring a delay in deciding these cases offer no rationale for it. Because over two weeks remain in our term, and because we have had the parties’ briefs for weeks, we should decide the cases now. These appeals were brought to us over 15 months ago. The parties deserve a decision on them sooner, not later.