Legal Opinion · Dissent

Doshi v. Michigan Basic Property Insurance

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided May 12, 1998No. Docket No. 196003Published

1Dissent

McDonald, P.J.,

(dissenting.) I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to plaintiff.

As the majority states, when this Court construes statutes our primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. Nat’l Center for Mfg Sciences, Inc v Ann Arbor, 221 Mich App 541, 545; 563 NW2d 65 (1997). The first-step in determining legislative intent is the specific language of the statute. Id. at 545-546. If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, judicial construction is neither required nor permitted. Id.

I believe the plain language…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Grace v. American Central InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  2. Phinney v. PerlmutterMichigan Court of Appeals · 1997
  3. Atwater v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer & Regulatory AffairsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
  4. Farmers Insurance Group v. Progressive Casualty InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. Harwood v. Auto-Owners InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1995

4 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