"While the Court of Appeals may properly express its belief that a decision of this Court was wrongly decided or is no longer viable, that conclusion does not excuse the Court of Appeals from applying the decision to the case before it." Boyd v W G Wade Shows, 443 Mich 515, 523; 505 NW2d 544 (1993), overruled on other grounds by Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & Co, 478 Mich 28; 732 NW2d 56 (2007), itself overruled in part by Bezeau v Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc, 487 Mich 455; 795 NW2d 797 (2010). CONCLUSION
September 28, 2010. Reported at 487 Mich. 455. Statement Regarding Decision on Motion for Disqualification Entered.
In general, judicial decisions are given full retroactive application except when prospective application is more appropriate because of reliance interests on previously-settled precedent. SeeBezau v Palace Sports &Ent, Inc, 487 Mich. 455, 462-464; 795 N.W.2d 797 (2010). But even if that were not the case, an unpublished opinion like Hawthorn-Burdine is of little consequence at all at this point.
Whether a decision of our Supreme Court should be overruled is a question of law reviewed de novo. See Bezeau v Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc, 487 Mich. 455, 461; 795 N.W.2d 797 (2010) (opinion by Weaver, J.). Because larceny is a specific-intent crime, Thorne, 322 Mich.App. at 348, and because the mens rea for felony murder includes "the mens rea required for the underlying felony," People v Hughey, 186 Mich.App. 585, 591; 464 N.W.2d 914 (1990), a successful defense to the specific intent required for larceny would necessarily be a successful defense to felony murder as well.
Id. at 172-173. Dye was decided after the trial court issued its opinions and orders granting summary disposition, but Supreme Court decisions are generally "given full retroactive effect," Bezeau v Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc, 487 Mich 455, 462; 795 NW2d 797 (2010), and no parties argues against the retroactive application of Dye in this case. Thus, Booker was not required to personally insure the vehicle.
Although Dye was decided after the trial court entered its order in this case, generally, our Supreme Court's decisions are given full retroactive effect. Bezeau v Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc, 487 Mich 455, 462; 795 NW2d 797 (2010). Plaintiff owned the Land Rover, and it was insured by Mile Runners.
Brewer provides an example of this principle. An earlier decision, Karaczewski v. Farbman Stein & Co. , 478 Mich. 28, 732 N.W.2d 56 (2007), overruled by Bezeau v. Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc. , 487 Mich. 455 (2010), had held that the previous statute provided for application of workers' compensation coverage regarding out-of-state injuries only if the contract of hire had been made in Michigan. As previously noted, the amendment "created an entirely new jurisdictional standard , granting jurisdiction over out-of-state injuries of Michigan employees whose contracts of hire were not made in Michigan," Brewer , 486 Mich. at 57, 782 N.W.2d 475, and thus was plainly a substantive change in the law that could not be applied retroactively, id. at 56-57, 782 N.W.2d 475. Continuing its analysis, the Brewer Court noted:
As recognized by the majority, "and" is a conjunctive term. See Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & Co, 478 Mich 28, 33; 732 NW2d 56 (2007), overruled in part on other grounds by Bezeau v Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc, 487 Mich 455; 795 NW2d 797 (2010). Thus, its use in this context indicates that "if the party is a specialist," the expert must satisfy both requirements—that is, active clinical practice in the same health profession and the same specialty.
Because our Supreme Court in Rowland did not explicitly overrule binding precedent that established the 120-day notice requirement of the GTLA as the governing provision in actions against county road commission defendants, and no case has been decided on the basis of MCL 224.21(3) for at least 46 years, we conclude that Streng effectively established a new rule of law departing from the longstanding application of MCL 691.1404(1) by Michigan courts. See Streng, 315 Mich App at 463; Bezeau v Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc, 487 Mich 455, 463; 795 NW2d 797 (2010) (opinion by WEAVER, J.). Turning to the three-part test, we first consider the purpose of the Streng holding, which was to correct an apparent error in interpreting a provision of the GTLA.
Although this Court in W A Foote Mem Hosp did not specifically address whether Covenant applies to pending cases in which the issue of provider standing has not been raised, we note that, in general, the decisions of our Supreme Court are given full retroactive effect. Bezeau v Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc, 487 Mich 455, 462; 795 NW2d 797 (2010) (opinion by Weaver, J.). Exceptions exist when injustice would result from full retroactivity.