Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Haynes v Neshewat

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 2007No. Docket 129206Published

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

  1. Gomez v. ToledoSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Tcherepnin v. KnightSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. PGA Tour, Inc. v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  4. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway v. BuellSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & AssociatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959

69 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