Court Opinion

ID: 9566519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:40:26.215967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:17.001628
License: Public Domain

*526Weaver, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result and agree that a prevailing party is not entitled to recover a second award of attorney fees under MCR 2.403(0), the mediation rule, after that party was already fully reimbursed for his reasonable attorney fees under subsection 606(3) of the Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act.1 However, I write separately because I make no decision regarding the statements in both the majority and Justice Taylor’s partial concurrence with regard to whether such double recovery of attorney fees would be appropriate with respect to other enactments of past, present, or future Legislatures. I reserve judgment of such other statutes until they are squarely before the Court.

 MCL 37.1606(3); MSA 3.550(606)(3).

 Dicta is defined as “Opinions of a judge which do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in court’s opinion which go beyond the facts before court and therefore are individual views of author of opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.” Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed), p 454. I agree with the majority that the facts before us do not justify duplicative recovery of attorney fees. However, whether duplicative attorney fees may be recoverable in other circumstances is not necessary to resolution of the present case and goes beyond the facts before us. Accordingly, discussion of this issue is dicta.