Wardav.City of Flushing City Council

Supreme Court of MichiganOct 29, 2004
471 Mich. 907 (Mich. 2004)

No. 125561.

October 29, 2004.

SC: 125561, COA: 241188.

Orders Granting Oral Argument in Cases Pending on Application for Leave to Appeal.

Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), the clerk is to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action permitted by MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties may file supplemental briefs within 28 days of the date of this order, and are directed to include among the issues briefed whether the city council's decision is subject to judicial review. See House Speaker v Governor, 443 Mich 560, 574 (1993), Messmore v Kracht, 172 Mich 120 (1912), and the concurrence in Bendix Safety Restraints Group, Allied Signal, Inc v City of Troy, 215 Mich App 289 (1996).

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ. We would entertain argument on the issues raised by the parties and not include an issue not raised by either party but created by this Court.

CORRIGAN, C.J. I concur with this Court's order directing oral argument on the application. I write separately to note that this Court can always address the question of its authority to decide a case. Such issues are jurisdictional questions that courts may raise sua sponte. This Court discussed this principle in In re Fraser Estate, 288 Mich 392, 394 (1939):

Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority, and a court may, and should, on its own motion, though the question is not raised by the pleadings or by counsel, recognize its lack of jurisdiction and act accordingly by staying proceedings, dismissing the action, or otherwise disposing thereof, at any stage of the proceeding.

Thus, this Court has authority to direct the parties to address whether the city council's decision is subject to judicial review because it relates to this Court's jurisdiction.