Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Keillor

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided June 28, 2018No. 340395Published

1Dissent

Markey, J. (dissenting).

I must dissent in respect to both the majority and concurring opinions. I do not accept the majority's statutory interpretation legerdemain by which "stomach" is added to the statutory definition of "intimate parts" under the aliases of "groin" and "inner thigh" and/or to make it synonymous with any of those words. "In determining the Legislature's intent, we must first look to the language of the statute itself." In re MKK , 286 Mich. App. 546, 556, 781 N.W.2d 132 (2009). Further, the Legislature is presumed to "be aware of the consequences of its use or omission of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. In re Olive/Metts MinorsMichigan Court of Appeals · 2012
  2. In Re Trejo MinorsMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  3. In Re MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1989
  4. In Re JKMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
  5. People v. BreidenbachMichigan Supreme Court · 2011

5 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