Court Opinion

ID: 9685313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:30:04.35933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:04.603358
License: Public Domain

Griffin, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result. I write separately to express my disagreement with a portion of the majority’s analysis. Because this Court in People v Kelly, 213 Mich App 8; 539 NW2d 538 (1995), held that People v Merriweather, 447 Mich 799; 527 NW2d 460 (1994), overruled People v Moore, 432 Mich 311; 439 NW2d 684 (1989), I find the majority’s reliance on dicta contained in Moore to be misplaced. Because Moore has been overruled, neither its holding nor its dicta is binding on this Court. In my view, the statements and conclusions upon which the holding in Moore was premised were dicta. See, generally, Roberts v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 422 Mich 594, 597-598; 374 NW2d 905 (1985), and People v Case, 220 Mich 379, 382-383; 190 NW 289 (1922). Further, I find incongruous the majority’s assumption that the under*679lying conclusions and statements of Moore may survive the overruling of the decision.
Accordingly, I would discard Moore in its entirety and not attempt to reconcile any portion of it with the current state of the law. In all other respects, I concur and join in the majority opinion.
Reilly, J., concurred.