Omdahl v. West Iron County Board of Education
Michigan Supreme Court
1DissentWeaver, J.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that a pro se litigant who is an attorney is barred from recovering “actual attorney fees” under MCL 15.271(4) of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) because there must be separate identities between the attorney and the client, within the confines of an attorney-client agency relationship, before the attorney may recover actual attorney fees. Instead, I would hold that the plain language of the OMA, which makes no reference to an agency relationship as a prerequisite to an award of attorney fees, allows for a pro se litigant who is an attorney to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kay v. EhrlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- In Re MCI Telecommunications ComplaintMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Veenstra v. Washtenaw Country ClubMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
- Lapeer County Clerk v. Lapeer Circuit JudgesMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
- People v. YamatMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.