310 Mich. App. 507 - Lee v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] court's primary goal when interpreting a statute is to discern legislative intent first by examining the plain language of the statute. [ Driver v. Naini , 490 Mich. 239 , 246-247, 802 N.W.2d 311 (2011).] Courts construe the words in a statute in light of their ordinary meaning and their context within the statute as a whole. Johnson v. Recca , 492 Mich. 169 , 177, 821 N.W.2d 520 (2012). A court must give effect to every word, phrase, and clause, and avoid an interpretation that renders any part of a statute nugatory or surplusage. Id . Statutory provisions must also be read in the context of the entire act. Driver , 490 Mich. at 247 [ 802 N.W.2d 311 ]. It is presumed that the Legislature was aware of judicial interpretations of the existing law when passing legislation. People v. Likine , 492 Mich. 367 , 398 n. 61, 823 N.W.2d 50 (2012). When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, courts enforce the language as written. Lafarge Midwest, Inc. v. Detroit , 290 Mich.App. 240 , 246-247, 801 N.W.2d 629 (2010). [ Lee v. Smith , 310 Mich.App. 507 , 509, 871 N.W.2d 873 (2015).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 321 Mich. App. 436 - Bettina Winkler v. Marist Fathers of Detroit Inc