Siporin v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 716 N.W.2d 588 (Mich. 2006). · Go Syfert
Siporin v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 716 N.W.2d 588 (Mich. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: National Pride at Work, Inc v. Governor (mich, 2008-05-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Pride at Work, Inc v. Governor (2×)
Mich. · 2008 · confidence medium
“Where a law is plain and unambiguous, whether it be expressed in general or limited terms, the [lawgiver] should be intended to mean what they have plainly expressed, and consequently no room is left for construction.” [Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (1st ed), p 55 (emphasis in the original), quoted in American Axle, 461 Mich at 362 .] When the language of a constitutional provision is unambiguous, resort to extrinsic evidence is prohibited, and, as discussed earlier, the language of the marriage amendment is unambiguous. 21 In Michigan Civil Rights Initiative v Bd of State Canvassers…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grievance Administrator v. Fieger (2×) also: Cited "see"
Mich. · 2006 · confidence medium
Notably, such a view seems surprisingly inconsistent with the position recently taken by Justice Maekman in Michigan Civil Rights Initiative v Bd of State Canvassers, 475 Mich 903, 904 (2006) (Maekman, J., concurring), in which he charged our citizens with the duty of informing themselves in the face of potential misrepresentations.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Steve SIPORIN, as Guardian of Leonard Serafin, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant.
131500.
Michigan Supreme Court.
Jul 12, 2006.
716 N.W.2d 588
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. The motion to stay the trial court proceedings is GRANTED, and the proceedings in the Washtenaw Circuit Court are stayed pending the completion of this appeal. On motion of a party or on its own motion, the Court of Appeals may modify, set aside, or place conditions on the stay if it appears that the appeal is not[*589] being vigorously prosecuted or if other appropriate grounds appear.