recognizing, in the context of rejecting the assertion that standing was waived, that "it is clear that counsel was aware that then-applicable Court of Appeals precedent likely would have rendered any [argument regarding standing] futile"
How later courts described this case
- recognizing, in the context of rejecting the assertion that standing was waived, that "it is clear that counsel was aware that then-applicable Court of Appeals precedent likely would have rendered any [argument regarding standing] futile"
- recognizing that the Court of Appeals serves as an “error-correcting Court.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Ronayne Krause, J. (concurring).
*197 I respectfully concur with the majority's conclusion that Covenant Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. , 500 Mich. 191 , 895 N.W.2d 490 (2017), applies retroactively and that plaintiff must be afforded an opportunity to amend its pleadings. I am merely unpersuaded that there is any sufficient reason present in this matter for departing from the general rule that decisions from our Supreme Court should be given retroactive effect by default.