In re Indiana Michigan Power Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

In re Indiana Michigan Power Co.

869 N.W.2d 277, 498 Mich. 881

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 25, 2015

DocketNos. 150555 and 150558

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 869 N.W.2d 277 (In re Indiana Michigan Power Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Indiana Michigan Power Co., 869 N.W.2d 277, 498 Mich. 881 (Mich. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

reported below: 307 Mich App 272. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we vacate only the Court of Appeals statement that: “Since the term [singular] is subject to two interpretations, it is ambiguous and judicial construction is required to effectuate Legislative intent.” This definition of ambiguity is not correct. A provision of law is ambiguous only if it “irreconcilably conflictfs]” with another provision or “when it is equally susceptible to more than a single meaning.” Mayor of Lansing v MPSC, 470 Mich 154, 166 (2004). However, the Court of Appeals correctly considered the statutory context to assess the meaning of the term. Koontz v Ameritech Services, Inc, 466 Mich 304, 318 (2002). In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

reported below: 307 Mich App 272. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we vacate only the Court of Appeals statement that: “Since the term [singular] is subject to two interpretations, it is ambiguous and judicial construction is required to effectuate Legislative intent.” This definition of ambiguity is not correct. A provision of law is ambiguous only if it “irreconcilably conflictfs]” with another provision or “when it is equally susceptible to more than a single meaning.” Mayor of Lansing v MPSC, 470 Mich 154, 166 (2004). However, the Court of Appeals correctly considered the statutory context to assess the meaning of the term. Koontz v Ameritech Services, Inc, 466 Mich 304, 318 (2002). In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

869 N.W.2d 277, 498 Mich. 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-indiana-michigan-power-co-mich-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack