Attorney General v. Public Service Commission
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Dissent
Meter, RJ.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent because I do not believe that this case presents the appropriate circumstances in which to address the Attorney General’s ability to sue a party whom she also represents.
The majority’s opinion fails to adequately address a key issue directed to us by the October 11, 2000, order of the Supreme Court: “whether the conflict of interest question raised at the oral argument presents a live controversy in this case or the dispute is purely hypothetical.”1 I conclude that the conflict of interest question raised at oral argument is indeed purely…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Shavers v. Attorney GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. GovernorMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
- Attorney General v. Michigan Public Service CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
- Michigan State v. Civil Service CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 1991
- Musselman v. Governor of MichiganMichigan Court of Appeals · 1993
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.