Legal Opinion · Concurrence

CG Automation & Fixture, Inc. v. Autoform, Inc.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided January 20, 2011No. Docket No. 286361Published

1ConcurrenceGleicher, J.

oconcurring). I fully concur in the majority opinion, but write separately to express my belief that MCL 445.619(4) renders that section of the molder’s lien act ambiguous. In my view, legislative reconsideration of the statutory language would benefit the tool-and-die and automotive industries as well as the legal community.

In MCL 445.619(1) and (2), the Legislature clearly and unambiguously commanded that molders seeking an enforceable lien undertake two mandatory actions by stating in subsection (1) that “[a] moldbuilder shall permanently record” specified identifying information on every…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kirkaldy v. RimMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Fluor Enterprises, Inc v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
  3. American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc v. City of HamtramckMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  4. In Re Wayne County ProsecutorMichigan Court of Appeals · 1999
  5. H.S. Die & Engineering, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (In Re Plastech Engineered Products, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API