By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
The Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy's appeal of a Court of Appeals ruling – which found rules setting limits on PFAS in drinking water were issued without following the protocols of the Administrative Procedures Act – is among six cases scheduled for oral argument before the Michigan Supreme Court in November.
The cases will commence in person before the court at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, November 13, but will be livestreamed.
3M Company v. EGLE (MSC Docket No. 166189) will be the first case of the morning before the bench. The lawsuit comes to the high court following a divided Court of Appeals holding that the department failed to issue a proper regulatory impact statement as the APA requires and as a result the rules setting limits on PFAS were invalid.
Although EGLE issued a regulatory impact statement with the rules, it did not address costs related to groundwater cleanup, which the rules would affect.
EGLE argued it was not required to estimate the costs to businesses that would necessarily occur under Part 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act because it lacked the necessary information to make an estimate. It also argued that the agency only needed an impact statement as it related to the proposed rule, which dealt with drinking water, and not on the groundwater cleanup that could be required because of the new rule.
The majority on the Court of Appeals disagreed. EGLE now appeals on the basis that the appellate court erred.
The following cases will be heard following 3M v. EGLE on November 13:
• C-Spine Orthopedics PLLC v. Progressive Insurance Company (MSC Docket No. 165537-8): This case involves a dispute over responsibility for paying out personal injury protection benefits. The trial court at first denied the defendant insurance company's motion for summary disposition, but the court later discovered the counter assignments at issue in the case were signed after the lawsuits were filed. The court then granted summary disposition to the defendant, holding the plaintiff lacked standing. A Court of Appeals panel in 2-1 published decision reversed and remanded the case. The high court has been asked to address whether the plaintiff indeed had standing and is a real party of interest.
• Parie Wallace v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation [SMART] (MSC Docket No. 165964): Another personal injury protection benefits case where the plaintiff received treatment for injuries sustained in the crash and incurred bills from various providers. The trial court denied in part the defendant's motion for summary disposition on the basis of recission for the assignment of care to other providers. The Court of Appeals reversed in part in a published opinion and remanded the case for further proceedings. The high court has been asked to address whether a plaintiff has standing and is a real party in interest if, before filing a cause of action, they had assigned rights to that cause of action to medical providers but, after filing the cause of action, the plaintiff and medical providers rescind the assignments.
• People v. Spears (MSC Docket No. 165768): The defendant in this case pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and felony-firearm, which he was sentenced to 20 to 50 years for the murder and a consecutive two-year term for the firearms charge. The Court of Appeals and the high court both denied the defendant's applications for leave to appeal in 2017. But two years later, the defendant filed for relief from judgment, which the high court remanded on leave granted. Still, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of relief. The high court has been asked to hear the case again and address whether the trial court properly advised the defendant of his rights at trial and whether "without justification or excuse" was an element of second-degree murder as a basis for his guilty pleading.
• Norfolk Southern Railway v. Metro Fibernet LLC (MSC Docket No. 165658): This case asks whether the defendant must obtain permission from the plaintiff to install fiber optic cables 15 feet underground and below a railway crossing. The circuit court granted the defendant summary disposition, holding the Railroad Code did not apply but also that the plaintiff had not identified another statute under which the defendant had to obtain permission. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the high court has been asked to address whether the defendant utility company must comply with the plaintiff's approval process before installing a utility line.
• Midwest Valve & Fitting Company v. Detroit (MSC Docket No. 165726): The case involves the city's imposition of annual charges on owners of commercial property and multiunit residential property within the city's limits. The plaintiff, an owner who paid the charges, claimed they are taxes in violation of the Headlee Amendment. The city, however, says they are permit fees. The trial court granted partial summary disposition to the defendant on the Headlee claim, but dismissed the plaintiff's remaining claims. The plaintiff appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in a published opinion. The high court has been asked to address whether the challenged annual charges violate Headlee and/or the Prohibited Taxes by Cities and Villages Act.
Gongwer News Service
The Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy's appeal of a Court of Appeals ruling – which found rules setting limits on PFAS in drinking water were issued without following the protocols of the Administrative Procedures Act – is among six cases scheduled for oral argument before the Michigan Supreme Court in November.
The cases will commence in person before the court at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, November 13, but will be livestreamed.
3M Company v. EGLE (MSC Docket No. 166189) will be the first case of the morning before the bench. The lawsuit comes to the high court following a divided Court of Appeals holding that the department failed to issue a proper regulatory impact statement as the APA requires and as a result the rules setting limits on PFAS were invalid.
Although EGLE issued a regulatory impact statement with the rules, it did not address costs related to groundwater cleanup, which the rules would affect.
EGLE argued it was not required to estimate the costs to businesses that would necessarily occur under Part 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act because it lacked the necessary information to make an estimate. It also argued that the agency only needed an impact statement as it related to the proposed rule, which dealt with drinking water, and not on the groundwater cleanup that could be required because of the new rule.
The majority on the Court of Appeals disagreed. EGLE now appeals on the basis that the appellate court erred.
The following cases will be heard following 3M v. EGLE on November 13:
• C-Spine Orthopedics PLLC v. Progressive Insurance Company (MSC Docket No. 165537-8): This case involves a dispute over responsibility for paying out personal injury protection benefits. The trial court at first denied the defendant insurance company's motion for summary disposition, but the court later discovered the counter assignments at issue in the case were signed after the lawsuits were filed. The court then granted summary disposition to the defendant, holding the plaintiff lacked standing. A Court of Appeals panel in 2-1 published decision reversed and remanded the case. The high court has been asked to address whether the plaintiff indeed had standing and is a real party of interest.
• Parie Wallace v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation [SMART] (MSC Docket No. 165964): Another personal injury protection benefits case where the plaintiff received treatment for injuries sustained in the crash and incurred bills from various providers. The trial court denied in part the defendant's motion for summary disposition on the basis of recission for the assignment of care to other providers. The Court of Appeals reversed in part in a published opinion and remanded the case for further proceedings. The high court has been asked to address whether a plaintiff has standing and is a real party in interest if, before filing a cause of action, they had assigned rights to that cause of action to medical providers but, after filing the cause of action, the plaintiff and medical providers rescind the assignments.
• People v. Spears (MSC Docket No. 165768): The defendant in this case pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and felony-firearm, which he was sentenced to 20 to 50 years for the murder and a consecutive two-year term for the firearms charge. The Court of Appeals and the high court both denied the defendant's applications for leave to appeal in 2017. But two years later, the defendant filed for relief from judgment, which the high court remanded on leave granted. Still, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of relief. The high court has been asked to hear the case again and address whether the trial court properly advised the defendant of his rights at trial and whether "without justification or excuse" was an element of second-degree murder as a basis for his guilty pleading.
• Norfolk Southern Railway v. Metro Fibernet LLC (MSC Docket No. 165658): This case asks whether the defendant must obtain permission from the plaintiff to install fiber optic cables 15 feet underground and below a railway crossing. The circuit court granted the defendant summary disposition, holding the Railroad Code did not apply but also that the plaintiff had not identified another statute under which the defendant had to obtain permission. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the high court has been asked to address whether the defendant utility company must comply with the plaintiff's approval process before installing a utility line.
• Midwest Valve & Fitting Company v. Detroit (MSC Docket No. 165726): The case involves the city's imposition of annual charges on owners of commercial property and multiunit residential property within the city's limits. The plaintiff, an owner who paid the charges, claimed they are taxes in violation of the Headlee Amendment. The city, however, says they are permit fees. The trial court granted partial summary disposition to the defendant on the Headlee claim, but dismissed the plaintiff's remaining claims. The plaintiff appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in a published opinion. The high court has been asked to address whether the challenged annual charges violate Headlee and/or the Prohibited Taxes by Cities and Villages Act.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
