Adair v. State of Michigan

I respectfully dissent because the majority acts precipitously by dismissing this case summarily without the benefit of a special master’s review and recommendation.

I agree with the basic proposition that underlies the majority’s opinion that plaintiffs’ art 9, § 29 Headlee “funding” claims that were or could have been made in Durant I1 or were settled by way of the 1997 state settlement2 are barred by the doctrines of res judicata3 and release,4 respectively, and should therefore be dismissed. The problem is that at this point in the proceedings it is not entirely clear which of the…