Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cameron v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 2006No. Docket 127018Published

1DissentKelly, J.

odissenting). I concur with Justice CAVANAGH’s dissent. I write this opinion to point out that the majority’s interpretation creates an absurd result, one that the Court should not permit. It is absurd to conclude that the Legislature intended to jettison no-fault claims of children and mentally impaired persons.

I agree also with Justices MArkmAN, WEAVER, and CAVANAGH that the “absurd results” rule is an important part of Michigan jurisprudence and should be reinstated. Four justices believe that the absurd results rule is valid and can be used in assessing a case. The accuracy of this…

2Cases cited86 opinions

  1. Caminetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Helena Chemical Co. v. WilkinsTexas Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Kaczorowski v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987

81 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