Court Opinion

ID: 9503664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:48:30.639607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:38.689346
License: Public Domain

WEAVER, J.
(concurring in part). I agree only with the result of the lead opinion, specifically, that the Court of Appeals correctly remanded the case to give the respondent “a fair opportunity to participate.” In re Rood, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 12, 2008 (Docket No. 280597), at 5.
Further, I agree with Justice YOUNG, post at 130 n 13, that because this case is resolved both substantively and procedurally on the basis of Michigan law, the lead opinion, expressing no restraint, unnecessarily attempts to resolve federal questions concerning Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 USC 670 et seq.