holding MCL 129.61 unconstitutional because it grants any resident taxpayer the right to sue even if the resident taxpayer fails to satisfy the three-part test for standing
How later courts described this case
- holding MCL 129.61 unconstitutional because it grants any resident taxpayer the right to sue even if the resident taxpayer fails to satisfy the three-part test for standing
- providing separate analyses for the statutory requirements to bring suit and whether the plaintiffs had constitutional standing, and concluding that while the former was met, the latter was not
- discussing the phrase in the context of public labor relations law
- taxpayer and qui tam standing
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part, on other grounds by Lansing Schools Education Ass'n v. Lansing Board of Education, 487 Mich. 349 (2010)
737 NW2d 158 (2007), overruled in part on other grounds by Lansing, 487 Mich 349
The opinion
CAVANAGH, J.
(concurring in the result only). I concur only with the result reached by the majority because I do not agree with its rationale. Instead, I agree with Justice KELLY that plaintiffs did not meet the statutory demand requirements of MCL 129.61. Accordingly, I believe that the Court of Appeals properly dismissed plaintiffs’ case and that there is no need to address the issue of standing.