DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. State Tax Comm

6 Citing cases

  1. City of Sterling Heights v. Chrysler Grp., L.L.C.

    309 Mich. App. 676 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that the court's written order controlled even though it did not include statements made at a hearing

    A facility must meet the requirements of both MCL 324.5901 and MCL 324.5903 to qualify for an exemption certificate. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. State Tax Comm., 482 Mich. 220, 226, 753 N.W.2d 605 (2008) (opinion by Young, J.); id. at 237, 753 N.W.2d 605 (Kelly, J., concurring in result); id. at 248–249, 753 N.W.2d 605 (Weaver, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). A facility may include structures, parts of structures, or accessories of structures or equipment:

  2. Petersen v. Magna Corp.

    484 Mich. 300 (Mich. 2009)   Cited 47 times
    In Petersen, Chief Justice MARILYN KELLY provided a nonexhaustive list of criteria for consideration when a court engages in a stare decisis analysis, but no single criterion is determinative, and a given criterion need only be evaluated if relevant.

    Ante at 328. She has previously opined that a statute is ambiguous "when its application to the facts of the case is uncertain," Daimler-Chrysler Corp v State Tax Comm, 482 Mich. 220, 240 n 2; 753 NW2d 605 (2008) (KELLY, J., concurring in the result), or when "there can be reasonable disagreement over its meaning," Fluor Enterprises, Inc v Dep't of Treasury, 477 Mich. 170, 186; 730 NW2d 722 (2007) (KELLY, J., concurring). As with her latest definition of ambiguity in this case, what would be truly remarkable about any of these definitions would be if they served to exclude many statutory or contractual disputes from their purview.

  3. City of River Rouge v. Ees Coke Battery Co.

    No. 315635 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2014)

    These provisions require a determination by the DEQ that a particular facility satisfies statutory requirements for the issuance of a certificate. See DaimlerChrysler Corp v State Tax Comm, 482 Mich 220, 226-227, 266; 753 NW2d 605 (2008). In the five consolidated appeals before us, there was no review undertaken by the DEQ before the STC issued new or amended tax exemption certificates on December 20, 2011.

  4. Zanke-Jodway v. City of Boyne City

    Case No. 1:08-cv-930 (W.D. Mich. Sep. 28, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    "MEPA provides a cause of action for declaratory or other equitable relief for conduct that is likely to result in the pollution, impairment, or destruction of Michigan's natural resources' and provides for immediate judicial review of allegedly harmful conduct."Anglers of Ausable, Inc. v. DEQ, 770 N.W.2d 359, 372 (Mich. App. 2009) (quoting Preserve the Dunes, Inc. v. DEQ, 684 N.W.2d 847, 849, 471 Mich. 508, 512 (Mich. 2004) (Corrigan, C.J., for five Justices) and citing MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 324.1701(2) and 324.1703(1); cf.DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 753 N.W.2d 605, 611-12 n. 24 (Mich.) (interpreting NREPA Part 55, which "regulates the construction and operation of sources of air pollution", Court stated, "the clear import of [MICH. COMP. LAWS § 324.5540] is that part 55 provides additional remedies to the existing remedies for the prevention or control of air pollution, namely private nuisance suits or citizen suits under MCL 324.1701.")

  5. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. State Tax Commi

    482 Mich. 1004 (Mich. 2008)

    Rehearings Denied September 26, 2008. Opinion reported at 482 Mich 220. WEAVER, CORRIGAN, and MARKMAN, JJ. We would grant rehearing and affirm the Court of Appeals.

  6. Ford Motor Co. v. State Tax Commi

    482 Mich. 1004 (Mich. 2008)

    Rehearings Denied September 26, 2008. Opinion reported at 482 Mich 220. WEAVER, CORRIGAN, and MARKMAN, JJ. We would grant rehearing and affirm the Court of Appeals.