discrete exception in Michigan

2003The 1975 Manistee Bank Court, relying on a law review article, [5] recognized the novelty of the Reed formulation, dubbing it the "fair-and-substantial-relation-to-the-object-of-the-legislation test." Manistee Bank, supra at 670 , 232 N.W.2d 636 . *772 After recognizing the new intermediate scrutiny test, the Court held that it applied to statutes like the automobile guest statute, which created "a discrete exception" to the common law that was "no longer experimental," Manistee Bank, supra at 671-672 , 232 N.W.2d 636 : In my judgment, at least where the challenged statute carves out a discret

2003The 1975 Manistee Bank Court, relying on a law review article, [5] recognized the novelty of the Reed formulation, dubbing it the "fair-and-substantial-relation-to-the-object-of-the-legislation test." Manistee Bank, supra at 670 , 232 N.W.2d 636 . *772 After recognizing the new intermediate scrutiny test, the Court held that it applied to statutes like the automobile guest statute, which created "a discrete exception" to the common law that was "no longer experimental," Manistee Bank, supra at 671-672 , 232 N.W.2d 636 : In my judgment, at least where the challenged statute carves out a discret

1986The Kostamo [v Marguette Iron Mining Co, 405 Mich 105 ; 274 NW2d 411 (1978)] Court noted several examples which have been regarded as significant by courts and commentators: temporal proximity of the cardiac episodes to the work experience, hot and dusty conditions, repeated return to work after a cardiac episode, and mental stress. [ 415 Mich 370 .

1986The Kostamo Court [Kostamo v Marquette Iron Mining Co, 405 Mich 105 ; 274 NW2d 411 (1979)] noted several examples which have been regarded as significant by courts and commentators: temporal proximity of the cardiac episodes to the work experience, hot and dusty conditions, repeated return to work after a cardiac episode, and mental stress. [ 415 Mich 370 .

1976We held in Manistee Bank & Trust Co v McGowan, 394 Mich 655, 671 ; 232 NW2d 636 (1975), that where the challenged statute carves out a discrete exception to a general rule and the statutory exception is no longer experimental, the substantial-relation-to-the-object test should be applied.” This test, as used by the United States Supreme Court in Reed v Reed, 404 US 71, 76 ; 92 S Ct 251 ; 30 L Ed 2d 225 (1971), requires that "A classification 'must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation *

1976We held in Manistee Bank & Trust Co v McGowan, 394 Mich 655, 671 ; 232 NW2d 636 (1975), that where the challenged statute carves out a discrete exception to a general rule and the statutory exception is no longer experimental, the substantial-relation-to-the-object test should be applied.” This test, as used by the United States Supreme Court in Reed v Reed, 404 US 71, 76 ; 92 S Ct 251 ; 30 L Ed 2d 225 (1971), requires that "A classification 'must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation *

2022Mettler Walloon, LLC v Melrose Twp, 281 Mich App 184, 221 ; 761 NW2d 293 (2008).

2022Mettler Walloon, LLC v Melrose Twp, 281 Mich App 184, 221 ; 761 NW2d 293 (2008).

2003Where a classification scheme creates a discrete exception to a general rule and has been enforced for a sufficiently long period of time that all the rationales likely to be advanced in its support have been developed, a court should fully examine those rationales and determine whether they are sound. 47 Dandridge v Williams, [ 397 US 471 ,] 486-487 [ 90 S Ct 1153 ; 25 L Ed 2d 491 (1970)].

2003Where a classification scheme creates a discrete exception to a general rule and has been enforced for a sufficiently long period of time that all the rationales likely to be advanced in its support have been developed, a court should fully examine those rationales and determine whether they are sound. 47 Dandridge v Williams, [ 397 US 471 ,] 486-487 [ 90 S Ct 1153 ; 25 L Ed 2d 491 (1970)].

1998See, e.g., Carson v Maurer, 120 NH 925; 424 A2d 825 (1980). 13 The substantial relationship test should be applied when “the challenged statute carves out a discrete exception to a general rule and the statutory exception is no longer experimental.” Manistee Bank & Trust Co v McGowan, 394 Mich 655, 672 ; 232 NW2d 636 (1975); see also Deepdale Memorial Gardens v Administrative Secretary of Cemetery Regulations, 169 Mich App 705, 712 ; 426 NW2d 785 (1988).

1998O’Brien v Hazelet & Erdal, 410 Mich 1, 19-20 ; 299 NW2d 336 (1980); Shavers v Attorney General, 402 Mich 554, 613, n 37 ; 267 NW2d 72 (1978).

1998O’Brien v Hazelet & Erdal, 410 Mich 1, 19-20 ; 299 NW2d 336 (1980); Shavers v Attorney General, 402 Mich 554, 613, n 37 ; 267 NW2d 72 (1978).

1989Although this criterion has been applied in a manner that renders the traditional rational basis test applicable in most instances, see, e.g., In re Jurek Estate, 170 Mich App 778 ; 428 NW2d 774 (1988)(statute regulating distribution of intestate estate without provision for remote relatives of decedent held not violative of equal *691 protection); Roy v Ran Tavern, Inc, 167 Mich App 664 ; 423 NW2d 54 (1988) (dramshop act denial of recovery to parents of allegedly intoxicated person held not violative of equal protection), heightened scrutiny has been deemed applicable pursuant to the Manistee

1989Although this criterion has been applied in a manner that renders the traditional rational basis test applicable in most instances, see, e.g., In re Jurek Estate, 170 Mich App 778 ; 428 NW2d 774 (1988)(statute regulating distribution of intestate estate without provision for remote relatives of decedent held not violative of equal *691 protection); Roy v Ran Tavern, Inc, 167 Mich App 664 ; 423 NW2d 54 (1988) (dramshop act denial of recovery to parents of allegedly intoxicated person held not violative of equal protection), heightened scrutiny has been deemed applicable pursuant to the Manistee

1989Although this criterion has been applied in a manner that renders the traditional rational basis test applicable in most instances, see, e.g., In re Jurek Estate, 170 Mich App 778 ; 428 NW2d 774 (1988)(statute regulating distribution of intestate estate without provision for remote relatives of decedent held not violative of equal *691 protection); Roy v Ran Tavern, Inc, 167 Mich App 664 ; 423 NW2d 54 (1988) (dramshop act denial of recovery to parents of allegedly intoxicated person held not violative of equal protection), heightened scrutiny has been deemed applicable pursuant to the Manistee

1989Although this criterion has been applied in a manner that renders the traditional rational basis test applicable in most instances, see, e.g., In re Jurek Estate, 170 Mich App 778 ; 428 NW2d 774 (1988)(statute regulating distribution of intestate estate without provision for remote relatives of decedent held not violative of equal *691 protection); Roy v Ran Tavern, Inc, 167 Mich App 664 ; 423 NW2d 54 (1988) (dramshop act denial of recovery to parents of allegedly intoxicated person held not violative of equal protection), heightened scrutiny has been deemed applicable pursuant to the Manistee

1989Although this criterion has been applied in a manner that renders the traditional rational basis test applicable in most instances, see, e.g., In re Jurek Estate, 170 Mich App 778 ; 428 NW2d 774 (1988)(statute regulating distribution of intestate estate without provision for remote relatives of decedent held not violative of equal *691 protection); Roy v Ran Tavern, Inc, 167 Mich App 664 ; 423 NW2d 54 (1988) (dramshop act denial of recovery to parents of allegedly intoxicated person held not violative of equal protection), heightened scrutiny has been deemed applicable pursuant to the Manistee

1989Although this criterion has been applied in a manner that renders the traditional rational basis test applicable in most instances, see, e.g., In re Jurek Estate, 170 Mich App 778 ; 428 NW2d 774 (1988)(statute regulating distribution of intestate estate without provision for remote relatives of decedent held not violative of equal *691 protection); Roy v Ran Tavern, Inc, 167 Mich App 664 ; 423 NW2d 54 (1988) (dramshop act denial of recovery to parents of allegedly intoxicated person held not violative of equal protection), heightened scrutiny has been deemed applicable pursuant to the Manistee

1989Although this criterion has been applied in a manner that renders the traditional rational basis test applicable in most instances, see, e.g., In re Jurek Estate, 170 Mich App 778 ; 428 NW2d 774 (1988)(statute regulating distribution of intestate estate without provision for remote relatives of decedent held not violative of equal *691 protection); Roy v Ran Tavern, Inc, 167 Mich App 664 ; 423 NW2d 54 (1988) (dramshop act denial of recovery to parents of allegedly intoxicated person held not violative of equal protection), heightened scrutiny has been deemed applicable pursuant to the Manistee

1989Although this criterion has been applied in a manner that renders the traditional rational basis test applicable in most instances, see, e.g., In re Jurek Estate, 170 Mich App 778 ; 428 NW2d 774 (1988)(statute regulating distribution of intestate estate without provision for remote relatives of decedent held not violative of equal *691 protection); Roy v Ran Tavern, Inc, 167 Mich App 664 ; 423 NW2d 54 (1988) (dramshop act denial of recovery to parents of allegedly intoxicated person held not violative of equal protection), heightened scrutiny has been deemed applicable pursuant to the Manistee

1988Miklik, supra, p 370 .

1985The trial court cited and relied on McAvoy v H B Sherman Co, 401 Mich 419 ; 258 NW2d 414 (1977), and Smith v Employment Security Comm, 410 Mich 231 ; 301 NW2d 285 (1981), and concluded that the traditional rational basis test was more appropriate because the interest of plaintiffs was pecuniary in nature and was not *388 based on either a fundamental constitutional right or on a classification which has been perceived precedentially as a suspect classification, such as in the case of gender-based discrimination.

1985The trial court cited and relied on McAvoy v H B Sherman Co, 401 Mich 419 ; 258 NW2d 414 (1977), and Smith v Employment Security Comm, 410 Mich 231 ; 301 NW2d 285 (1981), and concluded that the traditional rational basis test was more appropriate because the interest of plaintiffs was pecuniary in nature and was not *388 based on either a fundamental constitutional right or on a classification which has been perceived precedentially as a suspect classification, such as in the case of gender-based discrimination.

1985The trial court cited and relied on McAvoy v H B Sherman Co, 401 Mich 419 ; 258 NW2d 414 (1977), and Smith v Employment Security Comm, 410 Mich 231 ; 301 NW2d 285 (1981), and concluded that the traditional rational basis test was more appropriate because the interest of plaintiffs was pecuniary in nature and was not *388 based on either a fundamental constitutional right or on a classification which has been perceived precedentially as a suspect classification, such as in the case of gender-based discrimination.

1985The trial court cited and relied on McAvoy v H B Sherman Co, 401 Mich 419 ; 258 NW2d 414 (1977), and Smith v Employment Security Comm, 410 Mich 231 ; 301 NW2d 285 (1981), and concluded that the traditional rational basis test was more appropriate because the interest of plaintiffs was pecuniary in nature and was not *388 based on either a fundamental constitutional right or on a classification which has been perceived precedentially as a suspect classification, such as in the case of gender-based discrimination.

1981The Legislature has not specifically carved out a discrete exception applicable to employees of uninsured contractors in the same way that it did for guest passengers, Manistee Bank & Trust, supra, or workers’ compensation insurers, Shwary v Cranetrol Corp, 88 Mich App 264 ; 276 NW2d 882 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 979 (1979).

1981The Legislature has not specifically carved out a discrete exception applicable to employees of uninsured contractors in the same way that it did for guest passengers, Manistee Bank & Trust, supra, or workers’ compensation insurers, Shwary v Cranetrol Corp, 88 Mich App 264 ; 276 NW2d 882 (1979), lv den 406 Mich 979 (1979).

1980The instant case is distinguishable from the *774 decision in Bretz v City of Center Line, 88 Mich App 451 ; 276 NW2d 617 (1979).

1980The instant case is distinguishable from the *774 decision in Bretz v City of Center Line, 88 Mich App 451 ; 276 NW2d 617 (1979).

1979Chief Justice Burger, speaking for a unanimous Court in Reed v Reed, 404 US 71, 76 ; 92 S Ct 251 ; 30 L Ed 2d 225 (1971), stated: "A classification 'must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall *454 be treated alike.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) (Citations omitted.) See also Eisenstadt v Baird, 405 US 438 ; 92 S Ct 1029 ; 31 L Ed 2d 349 (1972).

1979Chief Justice Burger, speaking for a unanimous Court in Reed v Reed, 404 US 71, 76 ; 92 S Ct 251 ; 30 L Ed 2d 225 (1971), stated: "A classification 'must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall *454 be treated alike.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) (Citations omitted.) See also Eisenstadt v Baird, 405 US 438 ; 92 S Ct 1029 ; 31 L Ed 2d 349 (1972).

1978"It is understandable that a court reviewing what may be 'experimental’ legislation would say, as did this Court in Naudzius, [Naudzius v Lahr, 253 Mich 216 ; 234 NW 581 (1931)] '[p]erhaps the legislature also had other reasons for the law’.

1978"It is understandable that a court reviewing what may be 'experimental’ legislation would say, as did this Court in Naudzius, [Naudzius v Lahr, 253 Mich 216 ; 234 NW 581 (1931)] '[p]erhaps the legislature also had other reasons for the law’.