Opinion
No. 127836.
March 10, 2006.
SC: 127836, COA: 246761, Monroe CC: 00-011135-NI.
On January 11, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the December 7, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the motion to disqualify is DENIED. The application for leave to appeal is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
CORRIGAN, J., would peremptorily reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate summary disposition in favor of appellants, for the reasons stated in Court of Appeals Judge Kelly's concurrence and dissent.
I do not participate in deciding plaintiff's motion to disqualify Chief Justice Taylor and Justices Corrigan, Young, and Markman. This Court should publish proposals for public comment, place the issue on a public hearing for administrative matters, resolve, and make clear for all to know the proper procedures for handling motions for the recusal of Supreme Court justices from participation in a case. See Scalise v. Boy Scouts of America, 473 Mich 853 (2005). This Court opened an administrative file on the question on May 20, 2003, but has yet to address the matter. See ADM 2003-26.
The question regarding the participation or nonparticipation of justices frequently recurs and is a matter of public significance because even one justice's decision to participate or not participate may affect the decision and outcome in a case. See Advocacy Org for Patients Providers v. Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 472 Mich 91, 96-104 (2005) (Weaver, J., concurring).
I do not participate in the decision to deny the motion to disqualify. I agree with Justice Weaver in urging the Court to establish a particularized procedure to handle motions to disqualify a Supreme Court justice from participation in a case.