language of the court rule in Michigan

2026“If the language of the court rule is clear and unambiguous, then no further interpretation is required or allowed.” Id.

2020“The starting point to this endeavor is the language of the court rule.” Id.

2026“If the language of the court rule is clear and unambiguous, judicial construction is normally neither necessary nor permitted.” People v Strong, 213 Mich App 107, 111 ; 539 NW2d 736 (1995).

2026“If the language of the court rule is clear and unambiguous, judicial construction is normally neither necessary nor permitted.” People v Strong, 213 Mich App 107, 111 ; 539 NW2d 736 (1995).

2025Therefore, . . . analysis begins with the language of the court rule.” People v Walters, 266 Mich App 341, 346 ; 700 NW2d 424 (2005).

2025Therefore, . . . analysis begins with the language of the court rule.” People v Walters, 266 Mich App 341, 346 ; 700 NW2d 424 (2005).

2018Id.

2018Id.

2017“If the plain meaning of the language of the court rule is clear, then ‘judicial construction is neither necessary nor permitted, and unless explicitly defined, every word or phrase should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, considering the context in which the words are used.’ ” Castillo v Exclusive Builders, Inc, 273 Mich App 489, 492 ; 733 NW2d 62 (2007), quoting Hyslop v Wojjusik, 252 Mich App 500, 505 ; 652 NW2d 517 (2002).

2017“If the plain meaning of the language of the court rule is clear, then ‘judicial construction is neither necessary nor permitted, and unless explicitly defined, every word or phrase should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, considering the context in which the words are used.’ ” Castillo v Exclusive Builders, Inc, 273 Mich App 489, 492 ; 733 NW2d 62 (2007), quoting Hyslop v Wojjusik, 252 Mich App 500, 505 ; 652 NW2d 517 (2002).

2016When the language of the court rule “is unambiguous, [this Court] must enforce the meaning expressed, without further judicial construction or interpretation.” Grievance Administrator v Underwood, 462 Mich 188, 194 ; 612 NW2d 116 (2000).

2016When the language of the court rule “is unambiguous, [this Court] must enforce the meaning expressed, without further judicial construction or interpretation.” Grievance Administrator v Underwood, 462 Mich 188, 194 ; 612 NW2d 116 (2000).

2026Instead, the court rule simply requires the court to comply with MCL 722.31, which by its own language makes consideration of the D’Onofrio factors unnecessary when the relocating parent has sole legal custody.” Spires, 276 Mich App at 439 .

2019Instead, the court rule simply requires the court to comply with MCL 722.31, which by its own language makes consideration of the D’Onofrio factors unnecessary when the relocating parent has sole legal custody.” Spires, 276 Mich App at 439 . 8 D'Onofrio v D'Onofrio, 144 NJ Super 200, 206–207, 365 A 2d 27 (1976) -14- In Brausch, the mother moved with the minor child from Michigan to Canada.

2023Vermilya, 325 Mich App at 418-419 .

2023Vermilya, 325 Mich App at 418-419 .

2022“Unambiguous language in a statue or court rule is enforced as written.” Head, 323 Mich App at 542 . -2- III.

2022“Unambiguous language in a statue or court rule is enforced as written.” Head, 323 Mich App at 542 . -2- III.

2021Id. at 705 .

2005Haliw, supra at 705 .

2019CAM Constr, [ 465 Mich at 554 ].

2002CAM Constr, supra at 554 .

2019Id.

2002Id.

2016In doing so, “common words must be understood to have their everyday, plain meaning,” id., and courts may consult a dictionary to determine a word’s common and ordinary meaning, Krohn v Home- Owners Ins Co, 490 Mich 145, 156 ; 802 NW2d 281 (2011).

2016In doing so, “common words must be understood to have their everyday, plain meaning,” id., and courts may consult a dictionary to determine a word’s common and ordinary meaning, Krohn v Home- Owners Ins Co, 490 Mich 145, 156 ; 802 NW2d 281 (2011).

2015“If the language of the court rule is clear and unambiguous, then no further interpretation is required or allowed.” Id.

2010Buie, 285 Mich App at 416 .

1997“If the language of the court rule is clear, this Court should apply it as written.” Id.

1997Bruwer v Oaks (On Remand), 218 Mich App 392, 397 ; 554 NW2d 345 (1996).

2026If there is no ambiguity in the language of the court rule, this Court “need only enforce the rule as written.” Lamkin v Engram, 295 Mich App 701, 709 ; 815 NW2d 739 (2012).

2023“If the plain meaning of the language of the court rule is clear, then judicial construction is neither necessary nor permitted, and unless explicitly defined, every word or phrase should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, considering the context in which the words are used.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted.) B.

2022We presume the Legislature is aware of the language of the court rule, see Waterford Sch Dist v State Bd of Ed, 98 Mich App 658, 666 ; 296 NW2d 328 (1980), especially because the Legislature did in fact specifically authorize class action recoveries in other statutes where minimum damages are available.

2022We presume the Legislature is aware of the language of the court rule, see Waterford Sch Dist v State Bd of Ed, 98 Mich App 658, 666 ; 296 NW2d 328 (1980), especially because the Legislature did in fact specifically authorize class action recoveries in other statutes where minimum damages are available.

2020Acorn Investment Co v Mich Basic Prop Ins Ass’n, 495 Mich 338, 350 ; 852 NW2d 22 (2014).

2020The Cain Court reasoned that although the trial court failed to read the language of the court rule exactly, “we have no reason to believe that the jurors in this case as a result of these alternative efforts to inculcate in them a proper sense of their obligations did not understand the dignity and solemnity of the proceedings.” Id. at 123-124 .

2019A. The Providers Have Standing “The purpose of the standing doctrine is to assess whether a litigant’s interest in the issue is sufficient to ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy.” Lansing Sch Ed Ass’n v Lansing Bd of Ed, 487 Mich 349, 355 ; 792 NW2d 686 (2010) (cleaned up).

2019A. The Providers Have Standing “The purpose of the standing doctrine is to assess whether a litigant’s interest in the issue is sufficient to ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy.” Lansing Sch Ed Ass’n v Lansing Bd of Ed, 487 Mich 349, 355 ; 792 NW2d 686 (2010) (cleaned up).

2018This is known as "the offer of judgment rule." Froling Trust , 283 Mich.App. at 297 , 769 N.W.2d 234 .

2018This is known as "the offer of judgment rule." Froling Trust , 283 Mich.App. at 297 , 769 N.W.2d 234 .