Court Opinion

ID: 9503758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:48:57.439634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:43.155784
License: Public Domain

WEAVER, J.
{concurring in the result only). I concur in the result of the majority opinion because defendant *617Allstate Insurance Company lacks the authority to challenge the corporate status of cross-plaintiff PT Works, Inc. Under MCL 450.1221, only the Attorney General is authorized to challenge an entity’s corporate status.
I write separately because I disagree with the opinion’s strained discussion of the standing test erroneously created by the majority of four (Chief Justice Taylor and Justices CORRIGAN, YOUNG, and MARKMAN) in Lee v Macomb Co Bd of Comm’rs,1 Nat’l Wildlife Federation v Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co,2 Rohde v Ann Arbor Pub Schools,3 and Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America Inc.4 In those cases, the majority of four systematically dismantled Michigan’s law on standing and replaced years of precedent with its own test that denies Michigan citizens access to the courts.5
Kelly, J., concurred with Weaver, J.

 Lee v Macomb Co Bd of Comm’rs, 464 Mich 726; 629 NW2d 900 (2001).

 Nat’l Wildlife Federation v Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co, 471 Mich 608; 684 NW2d 800 (2004).

 Rohde v Ann Arbor Pub Schools, 479 Mich 336; 737 NW2d 158 (2007).

 Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America Inc, 479 Mich 280; 737 NW2d 447 (2007).

 See my opinions chronicling the majority of four’s assault on standing in Lee, 464 Mich at 742; Nat’l Wildlife, 471 Mich at 651; Rohde, 479 Mich at 366; and Michigan Citizens, 479 Mich at 310.