The Court also held that a litigant must meet Lujan's requirements in order to bring a declaratory action. Associated Builders Contractors v Dep't of Consumer Indus Sews Dir, 472 Mich 117, 124-127; 693 NW2d 374 (2005). Thus, after Lee and its progeny, little remained of the historical limited, prudential approach to standing, and the doctrine was significantly expanded.

A declaratory judgment is a procedural remedy that constitutes a binding and conclusive adjudication of the rights and status of the litigants. Associated Builders and Contractors v Director of Dep't of Consumer & Industry Services, 472 Mich 117, 124; 693 NW2d 374 (2005), overruled in part on other grounds by Lansing Schools Educ Ass'n, 487 Mich at 372 n 18 (emphasis added). Matters relating purely to the remedy requested are governed by the laws of the state where the action is instituted.

Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment under MCR 2.605, which permits a court, “[i]n a case of actual controversy,” to “declare the rights and other legal relations of an interested party seeking a declaratory judgment....” MCR 2.605(A)(1). Previously, the standing doctrine articulated in Lee and its progeny applied to plaintiffs seeking declaratory relief. Associated Builders & Contractors v. Dep't of Consumer & Indus. Servs. Dir., 472 Mich. 117, 126–127 & n. 16, 693 N.W.2d 374 (2005), overruled in part by Lansing Sch. Ed. Ass'n, 487 Mich. 349, 792 N.W.2d 686. In this case, the Supreme Court majority overruled Associated Builders & Contractors “to the extent that it required a litigant to establish the Lee/Cleveland Cliffs

The " actual controversy" requirement found in MCR 2.605(A)(1) has been described as " ‘ a summary of justiciability as the necessary condition for judicial relief.’ " Associated Builders & Contractors v. Dept. of Consumer & Industry Services Director, 472 Mich. 117, 125, 693 N.W.2d 374 (2005), quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hayes, 442 Mich. 56, 66, 499 N.W.2d 743 (1993). A court cannot declare the obligations and rights of parties regarding an issue if the issue is not justiciable, meaning that it does not entail a genuine, live controversy between interested persons who are asserting adverse claims, which, if decided, can affect existing legal relations.

We do not address the substantive issue regarding the constitutionality of the PWA; instead, we remand to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration and resolution of the defendants' appeal and plaintiff's cross-appeal on the merits. [ Associated Builders Contractors v. Dep't of Consumer Industry Services Director, 472 Mich 117, 120; 693 NW2d 374 (2005) ( ABC II).] Having considered the merits of the appeal and cross-appeal, we conclude that the PWA does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority to private parties, and so we reverse the circuit court's denial of summary disposition on that claim.

Under Michigan law, declaratory judgments are not separate causes of action, but "procedural remedies." Assoc. Builders & Contractors v. Dir. of Consumer & Indus. Servs. Dir., 693 N.W.2d 374, 378 (Mich.2005), overruled on other grounds by Lansing Sch. Educ. Ass'n v. Lansing Bd. of Educ., 487 Mich. 349, 792 N.W.2d 686 (2010)

5. Nat'l Wildlife Federation v Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co, 471 Mich 608; 684 NW2d 800 (2004); 6. Associated Builders Contractors v Dep't of Consumer Indus Servs Dir, 472 Mich 117, 124-127; 693 NW2d 374 (2005); 7. Mich Chiropractic Council v Comm'r of the Office of Fin Ins Servs, 475 Mich 363; 716 NW2d 561 (2006);

In People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184; 783 NW2d 67 (2010), the majority expressly overruled People v Derror, 475 Mich 316; 715 NW2d 822 (2006). In Lansing Sch Ed Ass'n v Lansing Bd of Ed, 487 Mich 349; ___ NW2d ___ (2010), the majority overruled Lee v Macomb Co Bd of Comm'rs, 464 Mich 726; 629 NW2d 900 (2001), Crawford v Dep't of Civil Serv, 466 Mich 250; 645 NW2d 6 (2002), Nat'l Wildlife Federation v Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co, 471 Mich 608; 684 NW2d 800 (2004), Associated Builders Contractors v Dep't of Consumer Indus Servs Dir, 472 Mich 117; 693 NW2d 374 (2005), Mich, Chiropractic Council v Comm'r of the Office of Fin Ins Servs, 475 Mich 363; 716 NW2d 561 (2006), Rohde v Ann Arbor Pub Sch, 479 Mich 336; 737 NW2d 158 (2007), Mich Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestle Waters North America Inc, 479 Mich 280; 737 NW2d 447 (2007), and Manuel v Gill, 481 Mich 637; 753 NW2d 48 (2008). In Bezeau v Palace Sports Entertainment, Inc, 487 Mich 455; NW2d (2010), the majority expressly overruled the limited retroactive effect of Karaczewski v Farbman Stein Co, 478 Mich 28; 732 NW2d 56 (2007).

5. Nat'I Wildlife Federation v Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co, 471 Mich 608; 684 NW2d 800 (2004); 6. Associated Builders Contractors v Dep `t of Consumer Indus Servs Dir, 472 Mich 117; 693 NW2d 374 (2005); 7. Mich Chiropractic Council v Comm'r of the OfficepfFin Ins Servs, 475 Mich 363; 716 NW2d 561 (2006);

But this allowance cannot be used to reduce a plaintiffs burden of proof for the cause of action for which it is seeking a declaration. As we stated in Associated Builders Contractors v. Dep't of Consumer Indus Servs Dir, 472 Mich 117, 126; 693 NW2d 374 (2005), the "actual controversy" and the "interested party" requirements of MCR 2.605(A)(1) mean that a party seeking a declaratory judgment must have a concrete and particularized actual injury in fact. The "particularized" requirement surely reinforces the idea that Headlee plaintiffs are required to quantify their "necessary increased costs."