From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coates v. Attorney General

Michigan Court of Appeals
Jun 7, 1983
337 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)

Opinion

Docket No. 57191.

Decided June 7, 1983. Leave to appeal denied, 418 Mich. 856.

Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow Trigg (by Donald S. Young and M. Teresa D'Arms), for plaintiff.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, and Harry G. Iwasko, Jr., Wallace T. Hart, and William A. Chenoweth, Assistants Attorney General, for defendant.

Before: M.J. KELLY, P.J., and CYNAR and G.R. COOK, JJ.

Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.



SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION


In this cause a motion for clarification of the Court's opinion released November 2, 1982, was filed jointly by all parties, and due consideration thereof was had by the Court.

The motion for clarification was granted for the limited purpose of answering the following questions. Otherwise the motion for clarification was denied.

Question No. 1:

May the Insurance Commissioner, on receipt of plaintiff's articles of incorporation from the Attorney General in accordance with this Court's mandamus, conduct an investigation, prior to permitting incorporation, into matters not expressly specified by MCL 500.5024; MSA 24.15024 or MCL 500.5040; MSA 24.15040, viz., the business or other motivation for incorporation, and may the Insurance Commissioner base a decision to deny incorporation on a finding, if made, of tax avoidance motivation?

The presently constituted majority answers this question in the negative.

Question No. 2:

Does the Insurance Commissioner have authority to conduct an investigation to determine if the proposed domestic insurer is merely a sham designed to permit it to enjoy tax advantages intended only for true domestic insurers?

The presently constituted majority answers this question in the affirmative but subject to the limitations as expressed in the concurring opinion previously issued.


I respectfully dissent. I would answer Question No. 1 in the affirmative. Further, I would answer Question No. 2 in the affirmative without any qualification.


Summaries of

Coates v. Attorney General

Michigan Court of Appeals
Jun 7, 1983
337 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)
Case details for

Coates v. Attorney General

Case Details

Full title:COATES v ATTORNEY GENERAL (SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION)

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 7, 1983

Citations

337 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)
337 N.W.2d 343

Citing Cases

Ferency v. Secretary of State

The general rules regarding the issuance of a writ of mandamus were summarized in Coates v Attorney General…