Court Opinion

ID: 9689223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:25:18.263365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:46.258255
License: Public Domain

Maher, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached in the lead opinion but write separately because I do not believe the holding in People v 8120 Ravine Rd, 151 Mich App 358; 390 NW2d 242 (1986), is "clearly at odds” with the decision herein since entirely different subsections of the forfeiture statute are at issue. In essence, the lead opinion gratuitously lambastes an apple when the fruit in question is an orange. The critical appraisal of 8120 Ravine Rd (a view I do not join), being self-admitted dicta, is unnecessary to the disposition of this case and should have been excised from the opinion lest it be misinterpreted as having some precedential value.