Haynes v Neshewat
Michigan Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceKelly, J.
This case requires us to interpret the public accommodations provision of the Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2302. A unanimous Court agrees that this provision prohibits unlawful discrimination against any individual, and not just members of the public. Having authored the opinion, obviously I agree with it. But I write separately because I believe that it is important to set forth additional reasons for the decision to which not all my colleagues adhere.
To start, I find frequent ambiguity in statutory language. I do not subscribe to the belief that “only a few [statutory] provisions are…
2Cases cited74 opinions
- Gomez v. ToledoSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Tcherepnin v. KnightSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway v. BuellSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & AssociatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.