stating that “this Court recognizes the unique opportunity of the jury and the trial judge to observe witnesses and the fact-finder’s responsibility to determine the credibility and weight of the testimony”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “this Court recognizes the unique opportunity of the jury and the trial judge to observe witnesses and the fact-finder’s responsibility to determine the credibility and weight of the testimony”
- holding that Zdrojewski's decision regarding the constitutionality of the caps was incorrect and should be overruled but that the court was bound to follow Zdrojewski's precedent
- stating that a party may not “leave it to this Court. . . to . . . unravel or elaborate its argument. . . .”
- explaining that “the trial court’s inquiry” under MCR 2.611(A)(1) should consider “the evidence presented”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Kelly, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority’s opinion in all respects other than, its conclusion that this Court’s decision in Zdrojewski v Murphy, 254 Mich App 50, 74-82 ; 657 NW2d 721 (2002), was incorrect and should be overruled. To the contrary, I agree with the reasoning and analysis applied by Judge Bandstra in his opinion in Zdrojewski , as well as that of Judge Hoekstra in Phillips v Mirac, Inc, 251 Mich App 586 ; 651 NW2d 437 (2002). The statutory cap on noneconomic damages set forth in MCL 600.1483 does not violate the Michigan Constitution.