YELLOW TRANSPORTATION INC V STATE OF MICHIGAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
FOR PUBLICATION
July 22, 2003
9:05 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
and MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION,
No. 194703
Court of Claims
LC No. 95-015706 CM
ON REMAND
Updated Copy
September 12, 2003
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Jansen and O'Connell, JJ.
O'CONNELL, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. On remand, the primary issue in the present case is to determine if
the statutory phrase, "collected or charged as of November 15, 1991," is ambiguous. As I stated
in my dissent in the previous appeal of this case, I would hold that the phrase is unambiguous.
See Yellow Freight Sys, Inc v Michigan, 231 Mich App 194, 209-212; 585 NW2d 762 (1998)
(O'Connell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (Yellow Freight II). On remand, I
continue to be of the opinion that the phrase is unambiguous. See Wickens v Oakwood
Healthcare Sys, 465 Mich 53, 60; 631 NW2d 686 (2001) ("If the statute's language is clear and
unambiguous, we assume that the Legislature intended its plain meaning, and we enforce the
statute as written.").
Nothing in the Michigan Supreme Court's opinion, 468 Mich 862 (2003) (Yellow Freight
III), or the United States Supreme Court's opinion in this matter, Yellow Transportation, Inc v
Michigan, 537 US 36; 123 S Ct 371; 154 L Ed 2d 377 (2002) (Yellow Transportation IV),
persuades me that my original position was incorrect. I note that Justice O'Connor specifically
stated in Yellow Transportation IV, supra at 44, that neither the Michigan Supreme Court nor the
United States Supreme Court addressed the issue raised by my previous dissent. Justice
O'Connor stated:
The Michigan Supreme Court did not consider respondents' argument that
the fees petitioner paid Michigan for the 1992 registration year were "collected or
-1-
charged as of November 15, 1991." 49 USC ยง 14504(c)(2)(B)(iv)(III). . . . The
only issue before this Court, therefore, is whether States may charge motor carrier
registration fees in excess of those charged or collected under reciprocity
agreements as of November 15, 1991.
Because neither the United States Supreme Court opinion nor the Michigan Supreme
Court opinion addressed the issue raised by my previous dissent, my previous dissent remains
unaffected by these subsequent decisions. In fact, I am slightly encouraged by the Michigan
Supreme Court's statement in Yellow Freight III that the Interstate Commerce Commission's
(ICC) interpretation of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), PL 102204, was contrary to the plain language of the statute, and, consequently, unworthy of deference.
Yellow Freight III, supra at 29-31. Indeed, if the ICC interpretation of the ISTEA is contrary to
the plain language of the statute and if it is unworthy of deference, then the majority's affirmance
of the ICC's interpretation of the unambiguous ISTEA is erroneous. See Wickens, supra.
In my previous dissent, I determined that the phrase "collected or charged as of November
15, 1991" is unambiguous. If I could conclude that this phrase is ambiguous, and if I was not
cognizant of the Michigan Supreme Court's edict in Yellow Freight III cited above, I might
consider approving the majority opinion. However, because the phrase is obviously clear on its
face, I reaffirm and republish my previous dissent:
I respectfully dissent from part II of the majority opinion. I find no
ambiguity in the statutory provision in dispute and accordingly would instruct the
Court of Claims to apply the statutory language according to its plain meaning and
not according to the ICC's strained construction.
The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect
to legislative purpose. Haworth, Inc v Wickes Mfg Co, 210 Mich App 222, 227;
532 NW2d 903 (1995). The language of the statute itself is the primary indicator
of legislative intent. Folands Jewelry Brokers, Inc v City of Warren, 210 Mich
App 304, 307; 532 NW2d 920 (1995). "If the plain and ordinary meaning of the
statute is clear, judicial construction is normally neither necessary nor permitted."
Dep't of Transportation v Thrasher, 196 Mich App 320, 323; 493 NW2d 457
(1992), aff 'd 446 Mich 61; 521 NW2d 214 (1994).
The pertinent language in [former] 49 USC 11506(c)(2)(B)(iv)(III)
provides for establishment of a fee system that "will result in a fee for each
participating State that is equal to the fee, not to exceed $10 per vehicle, that such
State collected or charged as of November 15, 1991." The majority reasons that
this language calls for identifying a "pertinent period" ending November 15, 1991,
but that it reveals no congressional intent concerning when this period begins.
The majority then resolves this supposed ambiguity by concluding that the
provision refers to fees charged for the registration year that includes November
15, 1991. However, this construction disregards the word "collected," and
broadens the specific reference, "as of November 15, 1991," to indicate the whole
-2-
registration year that happens to include November 15, 1991. This distortion of
the plain wording of the statute is unnecessary and inappropriate. Legislative
intent "is to be found in the terms and arrangement of the statute without straining
or refinement, and the expressions used are to be taken in their natural and
ordinary sense." Gross v General Motors Corp, 448 Mich 147, 160; 528 NW2d
707 (1995). The ambiguity that the majority finds is the result of the majority's
failure to accept the statutory wording at face value. When a statute is clear on its
face, judicial construction is unnecessary and inappropriate. Thrasher, supra.
As the majority states, it was the intent of Congress to "freeze fees at the
level as of November 15, 1991." To determine the particulars of that intent, I
would restore "collected" as the companion of "charged," and respect the
specificity of "November 15, 1991." A court should presume that every word has
some meaning and avoid rendering any word nugatory. Tiger Stadium Fan Club,
Inc v Governor, 217 Mich App 439, 457; 553 NW2d 7 (1996). Accordingly, I
would read "fee . . . that such State collected or charged as of November 15, 1991"
as fixing fee levels by reference to what the state charged on, or had actually
collected by, November 15, 1991.
The statute does not refer to a "period" ending on November 15, but
simply to that specific date. It does not refer only to the fee structure in place at
the specified time, but to fees "collected or charged" at that time, identifying fees
payable to the state, or already paid to the state (for whatever the reason), as
establishing the level at which the fees are to be frozen. The words "as of" in
reference to a specific date clearly refer to the status quo in place on that date.
Thus, the congressional intent to freeze fees at the rates "collected or charged as of
November 15, 1991" plainly recognizes for this purpose both the rates actually
charged and those according to which fees were actually collected on that date.
Accordingly, because the state had collected plaintiff 's fees as envisioned
for the 1992 registration year "as of November 15, 1991," 49 USC
11506(c)(2)(B)(iv)(III), by its plain terms, allows the state to continue to assess
plaintiff 's fees according to the new scheme under which plaintiff had tendered
payment by November 15, 1991.
At stake here is the state's interest in collecting higher fees from plaintiff
in accordance with recent changes in the state's regulatory scheme, and plaintiff 's
interest in avoiding those fee increases and continuing to operate under the old
scheme. Each party argues that the other stands to receive a windfall if the other's
interpretation of the statutory language at issue is adopted. That statutes have the
effect, intentionally or not, of benefiting some and burdening others is not a matter
of dispute, and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act is no
exception. Under any interpretation of 49 USC 11506(c)(2)(B)(iv)(III), someone
will win and someone will lose. Although the state's reading of the statute to
cause plaintiff to have to continue to pay much higher fees simply because
plaintiff chose to pay 1992 fees before November 15, 1991, may seem a harsh
-3-
result, the result is equally harsh if the state is obliged to forgo receiving the
higher revenues to which its own laws entitle it simply because the federal statute
articulated a date of late 1991 instead of early 1992. For these reasons, I would
avoid any concern for who benefits, or who gets burdened, from 49 USC
11506(c)(2)(B)(iv)(III) and simply give effect to its plain language.
Although I express no disagreement with the reasoning of part V of the
majority opinion, I do not join in that part because it concerns the relief to which
plaintiff is entitled, where under my reading of the statute in question plaintiff is
not entitled to any relief. I concur with parts III, IV, and VI. [Yellow Freight II,
supra at 209-212.]
/s/ Peter D. O'Connell
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.