Doe v. Department of Corrections

('concurring). I agree with the majority’s conclusion that § 301 is prospective in application and join in its reasoning in all but part in c of its opinion. I write separately to express my opinion on the application of the “first rule” from In re Certified Questions (Karl v Bryant Air Conditioning Co), 416 Mich 558, 570-571; 331 NW2d 456 (1982).

The first rule poses the following query: “is there specific language in the new act which states that it should be given retrospective or prospective application.” Id. at 570. In considering the promulgating lan*64guage of 1999 PA 201, I look for…