Legal Opinion · Dissent

Attorney General v. Public Service Commission

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided February 14, 2001No. Docket 215919Published

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

  1. Shavers v. Attorney GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. GovernorMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Attorney General v. Michigan Public Service CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Michigan State v. Civil Service CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Musselman v. Governor of MichiganMichigan Court of Appeals · 1993

1 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