KLIDA v. Braman

Michigan Supreme Court

KLIDA v. Braman

759 N.W.2d 888, 483 Mich. 891

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 6, 2009

Docket136535

StatusPublished

This text of 759 N.W.2d 888 (KLIDA v. Braman) 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

KLIDA v. Braman, 759 N.W.2d 888, 483 Mich. 891 (Mich. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Markman, J.

(concurring). Because I believe that the Court of Appeals reached the right result, I concur in this Court’s order denying leave to appeal. I write separately only to point out that the Court of Appeals, in my judgment, erroneously held that § 5851(1) of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.5851(1), is “ambiguous.” To the contrary, the RJA clearly states that a minor shall have one year after the disability is removed to “bring an action under this act,” and a breach of contract action is clearly an action brought under the RJA. A statute is not “ambiguous” merely because a term or phrase therein is subject to multiple definitions or understandings. See Lansing Mayor v Pub Service Comm, 470 Mich 154, 164-166 (2004). A clear understanding of what is and what is not “ambiguous” is an element in minimizing the exercise of discretionary and standardless judicial power.

Corrigan and Young, JJ. We join the statement of Justice Markman.

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

Markman, J.

(concurring). Because I believe that the Court of Appeals reached the right result, I concur in this Court’s order denying leave to appeal. I write separately only to point out that the Court of Appeals, in my judgment, erroneously held that § 5851(1) of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.5851(1), is “ambiguous.” To the contrary, the RJA clearly states that a minor shall have one year after the disability is removed to “bring an action under this act,” and a breach of contract action is clearly an action brought under the RJA. A statute is not “ambiguous” merely because a term or phrase therein is subject to multiple definitions or understandings. See Lansing Mayor v Pub Service Comm, 470 Mich 154, 164-166 (2004). A clear understanding of what is and what is not “ambiguous” is an element in minimizing the exercise of discretionary and standardless judicial power.

Corrigan and Young, JJ. We join the statement of Justice Markman.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

759 N.W.2d 888, 483 Mich. 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klida-v-braman-mich-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack