cost factors in Michigan

2024As our Supreme Court observed in City of Novi, 433 Mich at 430 : “Courts of law are ill-equipped to deal with the complex, technical processes required to evaluate the various cost factors and various methods of weighing those factors required in rate-making.” Nevertheless, plaintiff effectively asks this Court to independently review the cited financial documents—without the aid of any expert assistance— and make unilateral findings regarding proportionality.

2023“Courts of law are ill-equipped to deal with the complex, technical processes required to evaluate the various cost factors and various methods of weighing those factors required in rate- making.” Id. at 430 , In the absence of a complete review of defendant’s rate-making process, or the need for large-scale repairs or replacement of assets in the near future, plaintiff’s allegation that defendant’s water and sewer rates are unreasonable is speculative.

2019Id. “[T]he rule’s ‘costly toll’ upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging application of the rule.” Pennsylvania Bd of Probation & Parole v Scott, 524 US 357, 364-365 ; 118 S Ct 2014 ; 141 L Ed 2d 344 (1998).

2019Id. “[T]he rule’s ‘costly toll’ upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging application of the rule.” Pennsylvania Bd of Probation & Parole v Scott, 524 US 357, 364-365 ; 118 S Ct 2014 ; 141 L Ed 2d 344 (1998).

2019Id. “[T]he rule’s ‘costly toll’ upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging application of the rule.” Pennsylvania Bd of Probation & Parole v Scott, 524 US 357, 364-365 ; 118 S Ct 2014 ; 141 L Ed 2d 344 (1998).

2018Our decision declaring that the commission could not be severed from unconstitutional standards was not a superseding constitutional amendment, but rather a judicial remedy to cure a conflict between our state Constitution and the United States Constitution. 150 In re Apportionment of State Legislature—1982, 413 Mich at 107 . 42 various state “guidelines,”151 enacted in 1996, including that the districts “[be] areas of convenient territory contiguous by land,”152 “preserve county lines with the least cost to the principle of equality of population,”153 and remain as compact as possible when dr

2016More specifically, while “[t]he State may erect reasonable procedural requirements for triggering the right to an adjudication, be they statutes of limitations, or, in an appropriate case, filing fees,” Logan v Zimmerman Brush Co, 455 US 422, 437 ; 102 S Ct 1148 ; 71 L Ed 2d 265 (1982) (citation omitted), “a cost requirement, valid on its face, may offend due process because it operates to foreclose a particular party’s opportunity to be heard.” Boddie v Connecticut, 401 US 371, 380 ; 91 S Ct 780 ; 28 L Ed 2d 113 (1971).

2016More specifically, while “[t]he State may erect reasonable procedural requirements for triggering the right to an adjudication, be they statutes of limitations, or, in an appropriate case, filing fees,” Logan v Zimmerman Brush Co, 455 US 422, 437 ; 102 S Ct 1148 ; 71 L Ed 2d 265 (1982) (citation omitted), “a cost requirement, valid on its face, may offend due process because it operates to foreclose a particular party’s opportunity to be heard.” Boddie v Connecticut, 401 US 371, 380 ; 91 S Ct 780 ; 28 L Ed 2d 113 (1971).

2016Id. at 677 .

2016More specifically, while “[t]he State may erect reasonable procedural requirements for triggering the right to an adjudication, be they statutes of limitations, or, in an appropriate case, filing fees,” Logan v Zimmerman Brush Co, 455 US 422, 437 ; 102 S Ct 1148 ; 71 L Ed 2d 265 (1982) (citation omitted), “a cost requirement, valid on its face, may offend due process because it operates to foreclose a particular party’s opportunity to be heard.” Boddie v Connecticut, 401 US 371, 380 ; 91 S Ct 780 ; 28 L Ed 2d 113 (1971).

2016More specifically, while “[t]he State may erect reasonable procedural requirements for triggering the right to an adjudication, be they statutes of limitations, or, in an appropriate case, filing fees,” Logan v Zimmerman Brush Co, 455 US 422, 437 ; 102 S Ct 1148 ; 71 L Ed 2d 265 (1982) (citation omitted), “a cost requirement, valid on its face, may offend due process because it operates to foreclose a particular party’s opportunity to be heard.” Boddie v Connecticut, 401 US 371, 380 ; 91 S Ct 780 ; 28 L Ed 2d 113 (1971).

2014In turn, “[d]e minimus [sic] cost” is defined by MCL 21.232(4), which states, “ ‘De minimus [sic] cost’ means a net cost to a local unit of government resulting from a state requirement which does not exceed $300.00 per claim.” To the extent that the majority is correct that the effect of MCL 21.233(6) on the issue currently before this Court is not preserved, “the preservation requirement is not an inflexible rule; it yields to the necessity of considering additional issues when necessary to a proper determination of a case.” Klooster v Charlevoix, 488 Mich 289, 310 ; 795 NW2d 578 (2011) (cit

2014In turn, “[d]e minimus [sic] cost” is defined by MCL 21.232(4), which states, “ ‘De minimus [sic] cost’ means a net cost to a local unit of government resulting from a state requirement which does not exceed $300.00 per claim.” To the extent that the majority is correct that the effect of MCL 21.233(6) on the issue currently before this Court is not preserved, “the preservation requirement is not an inflexible rule; it yields to the necessity of considering additional issues when necessary to a proper determination of a case.” Klooster v Charlevoix, 488 Mich 289, 310 ; 795 NW2d 578 (2011) (cit

2010Necessary cost does not include the cost of a state requirement if the state requirement satisfies 1 or more of the following conditions: (a) The state requirement cost does not exceed a de minimus [sic] cost. (b) The state requirement will result in an offsetting savings to an extent that, if the duties of a local unit which existed before the effective date of the state requirement are considered, the requirement will not exceed a de minimus [sic] cost. (c) The state requirement imposes additional duties on a local unit of government which can be performed by that local unit of government at

2010Necessary cost does not include the cost of a state requirement if the state requirement satisfies 1 or more of the following conditions: (a) The state requirement cost does not exceed a de minimus [sic] cost. (b) The state requirement will result in an offsetting savings to an extent that, if the duties of a local unit which existed before the effective date of the state requirement are considered, the requirement will not exceed a de minimus [sic] cost. (c) The state requirement imposes additional duties on a local unit of government which can be performed by that local unit of government at

1995Id. at 184 .

1995Id. at 184 .

1995Allstate Ins Co v Keillor (After Remand), 450 Mich 412 ; 537 NW2d 589 (1995), is another case decided today involving the reasonable expectations doctrine. [40] In MEEMIC, the majority requires the primary insurer to pay the entire cost of defense with the result that Transamerica, which also had a contractual obligation to provide a defense, contributes nothing to the cost of defense even though Transamerica paid one-third, $50,000, of the mediation settlement. [41] See n 24 and accompanying text.

1995Allstate Ins Co v Keillor (After Remand), 450 Mich 412 ; 537 NW2d 589 (1995), is another case decided today involving the reasonable expectations doctrine. [40] In MEEMIC, the majority requires the primary insurer to pay the entire cost of defense with the result that Transamerica, which also had a contractual obligation to provide a defense, contributes nothing to the cost of defense even though Transamerica paid one-third, $50,000, of the mediation settlement. [41] See n 24 and accompanying text.

1982Ramblewood Associates v City of Wyoming, 82 Mich App 342, 345-347 ; 266 NW2d 817 (1978). • Petitioner relies on Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376 ; 276 NW2d 602 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 880 (1981), for its contention that a market approach should have been used instead of the cost analysis adopted by the Tax Tribunal.

1982Ramblewood Associates v City of Wyoming, 82 Mich App 342, 345-347 ; 266 NW2d 817 (1978). • Petitioner relies on Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376 ; 276 NW2d 602 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 880 (1981), for its contention that a market approach should have been used instead of the cost analysis adopted by the Tax Tribunal.

1982Ramblewood Associates v City of Wyoming, 82 Mich App 342, 345-347 ; 266 NW2d 817 (1978). • Petitioner relies on Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376 ; 276 NW2d 602 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 880 (1981), for its contention that a market approach should have been used instead of the cost analysis adopted by the Tax Tribunal.

1982Ramblewood Associates v City of Wyoming, 82 Mich App 342, 345-347 ; 266 NW2d 817 (1978). • Petitioner relies on Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376 ; 276 NW2d 602 (1979), lv den 411 Mich 880 (1981), for its contention that a market approach should have been used instead of the cost analysis adopted by the Tax Tribunal.