Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Capital Area District Library v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided October 25, 2012No. Docket No. 304582Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

GLEICHER, EJ.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the majority’s determination that the Capital Area District Library is not a “local unit of *242government” as defined in MCL 123.1101(a) and that the library’s weapons policy is permitted by the District Library Establishment Act, MCL 397.171 et seq. Precisely because the library is not a local unit of government and has promulgated a policy falling squarely within its rulemaking authority, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the field-preemption doctrine nullifies the plain language of the relevant…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Pohutski v. City of Allen ParkMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Roberts v. Mecosta County General HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 2005

19 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