City of Norton Shores v. Mun. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Mich.

491 Mich. 948

815 N.W.2d 494

CITY OF NORTON SHORES, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MICHIGAN, Defendant–Appellee.

Docket No. 144358.

COA No. 302673.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 29, 2012.

Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

MARKMAN, J. (concurring).

I concur in the majority's order denying leave to appeal. I write separately only to note that I find Malleis v. Employment Security Comm., 340 Mich. 78, 64 N.W.2d 663 (1954), which plaintiff relies on heavily, to be of questionable value. Indeed, Hajduk v. Revere Copper & Brass, 268 Mich. 220, 255 N.W. 770 (1934), an opinion that Malleis quoted with approval, was expressly overruled by Autio v. Proksch Constr. Co., 377 Mich. 517, 526, 535, 141 N.W.2d 81 (1966) (describing Hajduk as a “blatantly erroneous interpretive decision”). Malleis judicially created a six-year limitations period where the Legislature had created none. More recently, this Court has consistently applied statutes as they are written and has declined to add statutory-like provisions when the Legislature has not created such provisions. As this Court has explained, “a court may read nothing into an unambiguous statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as derived from the words of the statute itself.” Roberts v. Mecosta Co. Gen. Hosp., 466 Mich. 57, 63, 66, 642 N.W.2d 663 (2002) (declining to add a requirement to object to any deficiencies in a notice of intent before the complaint is filed in a medical malpractice action because “[i]n the absence of such a statutory requirement, we do not have the authority to create and impose an extrastatutory...