Opinion
Nos. 132292, 132293.
April 13, 2007.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals Nos. 265758, 265759.
Leave to Appeal Denied April 13, 2007.
The Court of Appeals erred, in my judgment, in holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the regulatory fee at issue in this case. Plaintiffs are wholesale and retail sellers of petroleum products. Although MCL 324.21508(1) states that the fee is "imposed on all refined petroleum products sold for resale in this state," MCL 324.21508(2) states that the regulatory fee is "precollect[ed]" from refiners and importers of petroleum. By holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to contest this statute, the Court of Appeals treated the term "precollect" as the equivalent of "collect," thereby rendering the prefix "pre" surplusage. However, the term "precollect" indicates that plaintiffs had a legitimate right to challenge the regulatory fee imposed on refiners and importers. I would remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of plaintiff's constitutional arguments.
CORRIGAN, J. I join the statement of Justice MARKMAN.