You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Amerisure Insurance Companies v. Michigan Basic Property Insurance Association

Citations: 708 N.W.2d 387; 474 Mich. 1018; 2006 Mich. LEXIS 134Docket: 128937

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; January 26, 2006; Michigan; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court issued an order on January 27, 2006, regarding the appeal by Amerisure Insurance Companies and Auto-Owners Insurance Company against the Michigan Basic Property Insurance Association. The Court denied the application for leave to appeal the May 10, 2005 judgment from the Court of Appeals, concluding that the issues raised did not merit review. Justices Cavanagh and Kelly expressed a dissenting opinion, indicating they would have granted leave to appeal. The order was certified by Clerk Corbin R. Davis as a true and complete copy of the Court's directive.

Legal Issues Addressed

Certification of Court Orders

Application: The Supreme Court order was officially certified by the Clerk, ensuring its authenticity and completeness as a record of the Court's directive.

Reasoning: The order was certified by Clerk Corbin R. Davis as a true and complete copy of the Court's directive.

Denial of Leave to Appeal

Application: The Michigan Supreme Court exercised its discretion to deny the application for leave to appeal, indicating that the issues raised did not warrant further review by the Court.

Reasoning: The Court denied the application for leave to appeal the May 10, 2005 judgment from the Court of Appeals, concluding that the issues raised did not merit review.

Dissenting Opinion in Judicial Decision

Application: Justices Cavanagh and Kelly disagreed with the majority decision to deny leave to appeal and would have preferred to grant it, highlighting a division in judicial opinion.

Reasoning: Justices Cavanagh and Kelly expressed a dissenting opinion, indicating they would have granted leave to appeal.