plain language rule in Michigan

2023Accordingly, if the plain language of a rule of evidence is unambiguous, we must enforce the meaning expressed, without further judicial construction or interpretation.” People v Snyder, 301 Mich App 99, 104-105 ; 835 NW2d 608 (2013) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2023Accordingly, if the plain language of a rule of evidence is unambiguous, we must enforce the meaning expressed, without further judicial construction or interpretation.” People v Snyder, 301 Mich App 99, 104-105 ; 835 NW2d 608 (2013) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2022Id.

2018Id.

2022“When ascertaining the -3- meaning of a court rule, the reviewing court should focus first on the plain language of the rule in question, and when the language of the rule is unambiguous, it must be enforced as written.” See Acorn Investment Co v Mich Basic Prop Ins Ass’n, 495 Mich 338, 350 ; 852 NW2d 22 (2014).

2022“When ascertaining the -3- meaning of a court rule, the reviewing court should focus first on the plain language of the rule in question, and when the language of the rule is unambiguous, it must be enforced as written.” See Acorn Investment Co v Mich Basic Prop Ins Ass’n, 495 Mich 338, 350 ; 852 NW2d 22 (2014).

2017As an initial matter, it must be noted that the trial court erred by denying McBee’s motion on the basis of a retrospective application of MRE 403 because the plain language of the rule only calls for balancing of the relative probative value and prejudicial effect of proffered evidence.8 McBee’s claim of error rests on the premise that he was prejudiced by the prosecution’s question, and lawyers’ questions are not evidence.9 As already noted, the 3 People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38, 60 ; 862 NW2d 446 (2014). 4 Id. 5 Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 46

2017As an initial matter, it must be noted that the trial court erred by denying McBee’s motion on the basis of a retrospective application of MRE 403 because the plain language of the rule only calls for balancing of the relative probative value and prejudicial effect of proffered evidence.8 McBee’s claim of error rests on the premise that he was prejudiced by the prosecution’s question, and lawyers’ questions are not evidence.9 As already noted, the 3 People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38, 60 ; 862 NW2d 446 (2014). 4 Id. 5 Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 46

2017See also People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015) (regarding prosecutorial error). 7 People v Blackmon, 280 Mich App 253, 261, 270 ; 761 NW2d 172 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (alteration in original). 8 “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” MRE 403 (emphasis added). 9 People v Mesik (On Reconsideration), 285 Mich App

2017See also People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015) (regarding prosecutorial error). 7 People v Blackmon, 280 Mich App 253, 261, 270 ; 761 NW2d 172 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (alteration in original). 8 “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” MRE 403 (emphasis added). 9 People v Mesik (On Reconsideration), 285 Mich App

2017When legislative intent is clear from the language, no further construction is required or permitted. [Fairley v Dep’t of Corrections, 497 Mich 290 , 296–297; 871 NW2d 129 , recon den 498 Mich 864 (2015).] The plain language of the rule does not reference indemnification.

2017When legislative intent is clear from the language, no further construction is required or permitted. [Fairley v Dep’t of Corrections, 497 Mich 290 , 296–297; 871 NW2d 129 , recon den 498 Mich 864 (2015).] The plain language of the rule does not reference indemnification.

2017As an initial matter, it must be noted that the trial court erred by denying McBee’s motion on the basis of a retrospective application of MRE 403 because the plain language of the rule only calls for balancing of the relative probative value and prejudicial effect of proffered evidence.8 McBee’s claim of error rests on the premise that he was prejudiced by the prosecution’s question, and lawyers’ questions are not evidence.9 As already noted, the 3 People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38, 60 ; 862 NW2d 446 (2014). 4 Id. 5 Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 46

2017As an initial matter, it must be noted that the trial court erred by denying McBee’s motion on the basis of a retrospective application of MRE 403 because the plain language of the rule only calls for balancing of the relative probative value and prejudicial effect of proffered evidence.8 McBee’s claim of error rests on the premise that he was prejudiced by the prosecution’s question, and lawyers’ questions are not evidence.9 As already noted, the 3 People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38, 60 ; 862 NW2d 446 (2014). 4 Id. 5 Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 46

2017When legislative intent is clear from the language, no further construction is required or permitted. [Fairley v Dep’t of Corrections, 497 Mich 290 , 296–297; 871 NW2d 129 , recon den 498 Mich 864 (2015).] The plain language of the rule does not reference indemnification.

2017When legislative intent is clear from the language, no further construction is required or permitted. [Fairley v Dep’t of Corrections, 497 Mich 290 , 296–297; 871 NW2d 129 , recon den 498 Mich 864 (2015).] The plain language of the rule does not reference indemnification.

2017Id. at 257-258 . -1- MRE 615 addresses exclusion of witnesses and provides: At the request of a party the court may order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order of its own motion.

2017Id. at 257-258 . -1- MRE 615 addresses exclusion of witnesses and provides: At the request of a party the court may order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order of its own motion.

2004Dykes v William Beaumont Hosp, 246 Mich App 471, 484 ; 633 NW2d 440 (2001).

2004Dykes v William Beaumont Hosp, 246 Mich App 471, 484 ; 633 NW2d 440 (2001).

2024Varran v Grannerman, 312 Mich App 591, 599 ; 880 NW2d 242 (2015).

2022Barnett v Hidalgo, 478 Mich 151, 165 ; 732 NW2d 472 (2007).

2022Barnett v Hidalgo, 478 Mich 151, 165 ; 732 NW2d 472 (2007).

2020In re Jajuga Estate, 312 Mich App 706, 712 ; 881 NW2d 487 (2015). “ ‘If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be enforced as written and no further judicial construction is permitted.’ ” Id., quoting Book-Gilbert v Greenleaf, 302 Mich App 538, 541 ; 840 NW2d 743 (2013).

2020In re Jajuga Estate, 312 Mich App 706, 712 ; 881 NW2d 487 (2015). “ ‘If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be enforced as written and no further judicial construction is permitted.’ ” Id., quoting Book-Gilbert v Greenleaf, 302 Mich App 538, 541 ; 840 NW2d 743 (2013).

2020Paris Meadows, LLC v Kentwood, 287 Mich App 136 , 145 n 3; 783 NW2d 133 (2010). -9- litigation between the parties must be filed in Arizona state or federal courts, and thus this provision does not prevent the parties from filing suit in Michigan.

2020Paris Meadows, LLC v Kentwood, 287 Mich App 136 , 145 n 3; 783 NW2d 133 (2010). -9- litigation between the parties must be filed in Arizona state or federal courts, and thus this provision does not prevent the parties from filing suit in Michigan.

2020In re Jajuga Estate, 312 Mich App 706, 712 ; 881 NW2d 487 (2015). “ ‘If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be enforced as written and no further judicial construction is permitted.’ ” Id., quoting Book-Gilbert v Greenleaf, 302 Mich App 538, 541 ; 840 NW2d 743 (2013).

2020The test enunciated by the court in Golden Palm Hospitality is also consistent with the approach employed in a prior unpublished decision of our Court10 holding as follows: Consequently, in the absence of language indicating that the parties intended for the grant of jurisdiction to be exclusive to Arizona state and federal courts, we conclude that the plain language of the clause at issue permits the parties to pursue litigation in Arizona state and federal courts, but it does not mandate that any 9 Bank of America, NA, 316 Mich App at 496 n 2. 10 Unpublished opinions of this Court may be con

2020In re Jajuga Estate, 312 Mich App 706, 712 ; 881 NW2d 487 (2015). “ ‘If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be enforced as written and no further judicial construction is permitted.’ ” Id., quoting Book-Gilbert v Greenleaf, 302 Mich App 538, 541 ; 840 NW2d 743 (2013).

2020In re Jajuga Estate, 312 Mich App 706, 712 ; 881 NW2d 487 (2015). “ ‘If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be enforced as written and no further judicial construction is permitted.’ ” Id., quoting Book-Gilbert v Greenleaf, 302 Mich App 538, 541 ; 840 NW2d 743 (2013).

2019APPLICABLE LAW MRPC 1.5(e) provides that "[a] division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if ... the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved; and ... the total fee is reasonable." (Emphasis added.) Considering the plain language of the rule, as this Court must, Sanders , 323 Mich. App. at 266 -267 , 916 N.W.2d 305 , a contract for a referral fee violates MRPC 1.5(e) and is thus unenforceable as against public policy unless a client has been advised of the agreement and did not object. 2.

2019APPLICABLE LAW MRPC 1.5(e) provides that "[a] division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if ... the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved; and ... the total fee is reasonable." (Emphasis added.) Considering the plain language of the rule, as this Court must, Sanders , 323 Mich. App. at 266 -267 , 916 N.W.2d 305 , a contract for a referral fee violates MRPC 1.5(e) and is thus unenforceable as against public policy unless a client has been advised of the agreement and did not object. 2.

2018In particular, MCR 2.512(B) provides as follows: (1) At any time during the trial, the court may, with or without request, instruct the jury on a point of law if the instruction will materially aid the jury in understanding the proceedings and arriving at a just verdict. 1 Ligons v Crittenton Hosp, 490 Mich 61, 70 ; 803 NW2d 271 (2011); see also People v Duncan, 494 Mich 713, 723 ; 835 NW2d 399 (2013). 2 Duncan, 494 Mich at 723 . 3 Accord SBC Health Midwest, Inc v Kentwood, 500 Mich 65 , 70-71; 894 NW2d 535 (2017); In re McCarrick/Lamoreaux, 307 Mich App 436, 447 ; 861 NW2d 303 (2014); State B

2018In particular, MCR 2.512(B) provides as follows: (1) At any time during the trial, the court may, with or without request, instruct the jury on a point of law if the instruction will materially aid the jury in understanding the proceedings and arriving at a just verdict. 1 Ligons v Crittenton Hosp, 490 Mich 61, 70 ; 803 NW2d 271 (2011); see also People v Duncan, 494 Mich 713, 723 ; 835 NW2d 399 (2013). 2 Duncan, 494 Mich at 723 . 3 Accord SBC Health Midwest, Inc v Kentwood, 500 Mich 65 , 70-71; 894 NW2d 535 (2017); In re McCarrick/Lamoreaux, 307 Mich App 436, 447 ; 861 NW2d 303 (2014); State B

2018In particular, MCR 2.512(B) provides as follows: (1) At any time during the trial, the court may, with or without request, instruct the jury on a point of law if the instruction will materially aid the jury in understanding the proceedings and arriving at a just verdict. 1 Ligons v Crittenton Hosp, 490 Mich 61, 70 ; 803 NW2d 271 (2011); see also People v Duncan, 494 Mich 713, 723 ; 835 NW2d 399 (2013). 2 Duncan, 494 Mich at 723 . 3 Accord SBC Health Midwest, Inc v Kentwood, 500 Mich 65 , 70-71; 894 NW2d 535 (2017); In re McCarrick/Lamoreaux, 307 Mich App 436, 447 ; 861 NW2d 303 (2014); State B

2018In particular, MCR 2.512(B) provides as follows: (1) At any time during the trial, the court may, with or without request, instruct the jury on a point of law if the instruction will materially aid the jury in understanding the proceedings and arriving at a just verdict. 1 Ligons v Crittenton Hosp, 490 Mich 61, 70 ; 803 NW2d 271 (2011); see also People v Duncan, 494 Mich 713, 723 ; 835 NW2d 399 (2013). 2 Duncan, 494 Mich at 723 . 3 Accord SBC Health Midwest, Inc v Kentwood, 500 Mich 65 , 70-71; 894 NW2d 535 (2017); In re McCarrick/Lamoreaux, 307 Mich App 436, 447 ; 861 NW2d 303 (2014); State B

2018In particular, MCR 2.512(B) provides as follows: (1) At any time during the trial, the court may, with or without request, instruct the jury on a point of law if the instruction will materially aid the jury in understanding the proceedings and arriving at a just verdict. 1 Ligons v Crittenton Hosp, 490 Mich 61, 70 ; 803 NW2d 271 (2011); see also People v Duncan, 494 Mich 713, 723 ; 835 NW2d 399 (2013). 2 Duncan, 494 Mich at 723 . 3 Accord SBC Health Midwest, Inc v Kentwood, 500 Mich 65 , 70-71; 894 NW2d 535 (2017); In re McCarrick/Lamoreaux, 307 Mich App 436, 447 ; 861 NW2d 303 (2014); State B

2018In particular, MCR 2.512(B) provides as follows: (1) At any time during the trial, the court may, with or without request, instruct the jury on a point of law if the instruction will materially aid the jury in understanding the proceedings and arriving at a just verdict. 1 Ligons v Crittenton Hosp, 490 Mich 61, 70 ; 803 NW2d 271 (2011); see also People v Duncan, 494 Mich 713, 723 ; 835 NW2d 399 (2013). 2 Duncan, 494 Mich at 723 . 3 Accord SBC Health Midwest, Inc v Kentwood, 500 Mich 65 , 70-71; 894 NW2d 535 (2017); In re McCarrick/Lamoreaux, 307 Mich App 436, 447 ; 861 NW2d 303 (2014); State B

2017Id.