Pearl Lewis v. St John Hosp

CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 24, 2006
Docket129529
StatusPublished

This text of Pearl Lewis v. St John Hosp (Pearl Lewis v. St John Hosp) 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
Pearl Lewis v. St John Hosp, (Mich. 2006).

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

March 24, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

129529 & (117) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEARL LEWIS, Individually and as Personal Robert P. Young, Jr. Representative of the Estate of Mason Lewis, Stephen J. Markman, Justices Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129529

COA: 252712

Wayne CC: 01-123121-NI

ST. JOHN HOSPITAL,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 23, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court. The motion to disqualify Chief Justice Taylor and Justices Corrigan, Young, and Markman is DENIED.

WEAVER, J., dissents and states as follows:

I do not participate in the decision regarding the motion to disqualify Chief Justice Taylor and Justices Corrigan, Young, and Markman.

I am opposed to the entry of any order in this case at this time and would hold this case in abeyance until this Court publishes proposals for public comment, places the issue on a public hearing for administrative matters, resolves, and makes clear for all to know the proper procedures for handling motions for the disqualification of Supreme Court justices from participation in a case. This Court opened an administrative file on the question on May 20, 2003, but has yet to address the matter publicly. See ADM 2003-26.

The question regarding the participation or nonparticipation of justices frequently recurs and is a matter of public significance because even one justice’s decision to participate or not participate can affect the decision and outcome in a case. See Advocacy 2

Org for Patients & Providers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 472 Mich 91, 96-101 (2005) (Weaver, J., concurring).

KELLY, J., states as follows:

I do not participate in the decision to deny the motion to disqualify. I agree with Justice Weaver in urging the Court to establish a particularized written procedure to handle motions to disqualify a Supreme Court justice from participation in a case.

CAVANAGH, J., joins the statement of KELLY, J.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. March 24, 2006 _________________________________________ t0321 Clerk

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pearl Lewis v. St John Hosp, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearl-lewis-v-st-john-hosp-mich-2006.