Court Opinion

ID: 9657605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:31:33.47952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:46.724329
License: Public Domain

Boyle, J.
(dissenting). The rationale of the per curiam opinion seems to be that "what was, is.”
I would grant leave to appeal to allow the profession to educate the members of the Court on how or why the Michigan rule and its apparent adherence to a nonunified approach to motion practice is superior to the approach under FR Civ P 12(b), 12(c), and 56. In my view, it is ill-advised to issue a per curiam decision that affects every civil case in our state without input from the practicing bar and an invitation for briefs amici curiae from the trial judiciary.
Brickley, J., concurred with Boyle, J.