Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Auto-Owners Insurance v. Stenberg Bros.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided March 10, 1998No. Docket 198645Published

1ConcurrenceBandstra, J.

I concur in the result reached by the majority but for a different reason.

While I agree with the majority that the portion of Davidson v Secretary of State, 351 Mich 4; 87 NW2d 131 (1957), relied upon by plaintiff is dictum, I conclude that the Supreme Court in Davidson reached the correct result. The statutory definition of “special mobile equipment” is a limiting definition, carving out from the universe of vehicles those that qualify. See MCL 257.62; MSA 9.1862. Under the statutory language, the vehicles that qualify are determined by a two-step process, which first delineates vehicles…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Aller v. Detroit Police Department Trial BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Welch v. District CourtMichigan Court of Appeals · 1996
  3. Davidson v. Secretary of StateMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Reaver v. WestwoodMichigan Court of Appeals · 1986
  5. Einerwold v. Complete Auto Transit, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API