Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Adair v. Michigan

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 2014No. Docket 147794Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCavanagh, J.

There are generally two issues implicated in this *112appeal. First, we asked the parties to address “which party has the burden of proving underfunding of a legislative mandate in a challenge under Const 1963, art 9, § 29” and the elements of such a claim. Adair v Michigan, 495 Mich 937, 937-938 (2014). This first issue involves a plaintiffs burden of proof in showing that the state underfunded “[a] new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activity or service beyond that required by existing law” for the purposes of the second provision of the Headlee Amendment, commonly…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Klooster v. City of CharlevoixMichigan Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Durant v. State Board of EducationMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Samuel D Begola Services, Inc. v. Wild Bros.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1995
  4. Sweebe v. SweebeMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Oakland County v. State of Mich.Michigan Supreme Court · 1997

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API